^- }y^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS)NO. ^3%^> /2011 PETITIONER ^•••"" ^ ^^ ^°yv^ ^^'^ RESPONDENTS: kailash Singh Thakur S/o Latel Singh Thakur, Aged about 50 years, Head Master, Govemment Primary School Kothar, Block- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham- (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education officer, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) 3. Block Education officer, Kawardha, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ....^, u ^l -y ^/ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : Hon^ble Shri Manindra MohanShrivastava, J. W.P.rSt.No. 4386/2011 Petitioner versus Respondents Kailash Singh Thakur State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others Petition u/A 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, on advance copy. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 8.8.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department on 15.4.1986 (Annexure P/l), is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur at his own cost in the year 2006, after seeking permission for the same from the department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view of the ^^~N —<„'^. /;' judgment of Hon^ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). '^l^ 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 allowed advance increments only to those government servants who proceeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceeded on training on or after 23.10.1964 canget two annual increments only if the training is at his cost and not at fhe costof the Govemment. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superseded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Government vide notiflcation dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-II Educational Sendces (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. or B.Ed. degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.TJ. degree at his own cost during service after obtaining permission from the departiiient between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. 4. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court ,in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the' circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Badrinarayan Acharya^s case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). ^^ 5. Shri Das fairly submits that principle of law laid down in the case of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra) has attained finality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated24.12.1998. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments from the date of declaration of the petitioner's D.Ed. examination result. The respondents are accordingly directed to make payment oftwo advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing D.Ed. examination, within a period of four months from today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen