'wffa9i -1- c .^. ^01"" ^ BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l PETITIONER ^" ^v.^^ ^*"" .^9 ••••"E'^"""...-•""" ^'^^ .^-^^ '^. <^^' y-! RESPONDENTS 2. W.P.(S)No. Ltf)0b Of 2011 Lela Ram Netam, S/o Shri Pitambar Netam, Aged about 45 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Govt. Balak Primary School, Rengakathera, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through Secretary Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. District Education officer Ka-b-iFdham (C.G.) ^yiMftne)^- C^C^- - ^dJ^Jt^^^- UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^ 1 ^o H!GN_CQURTpFCHHATT!SGARHAT_BiLASPUR (Hon. Mr Justice Pritsnker Dlwaker) W.P(S). No. 4800 of 2011 Petjtloner Lela Ram Netam VERSUS Res^ondents State of Chhattlsgarh and others Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsei for the petitioner. Shri P. Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. O RD E R (23.08.2011) The petltioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the Schooi Education Department on 01.07.1986 (Annexure P-1) is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance increments in his saiary even though he did his D.Ed from MadhyamiR Shiksha Mandai, iVI.P. at his own cost in the year 2002 afterseeking permission for the same from the Department. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitjed for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.1998 and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & another vs. Badrinaravan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and also in the light of Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Municipal Corporation. Durg and another reported in 2006 (18) 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circuiar dated 22.10.1964 allowed advance increments only to those Govemment 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 can get two annuat increments only if the training is at his cost and ^m' ^..^r^ 1- ^f lldiiiiiiiiiiiiinii • not at the cost of the Government. Thjs circular dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Government vide nottfication dated 16.06.1973 amended M.P. Non-Gazette Class-11 Educational Services (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 petitloner would be entitled for advance increments only on the condition that he had obtained his B.T.t./B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost duringservice after obtaining permission from the Department between 23.10.1964 and 01.03.1999. To ctarify the above position, circulars have atready been issued on 06.02.2007 and 30.01,2009. 4. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaboratety discussing the circulars dated 24.12.1998, 01.03.1999 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 entltted for two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination' certificate atter 22.10.1964, as the circuiar dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I certificate. !t has been further held that circular dated 01.03.1999 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). 5. Shri Das fairty submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra) has attained finality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squareiy covered by the above judgment as also circuiar dated 24.12.1998. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitied to the payment of two advance increments from the date of dectaration of the petitioner's D.Ed. examination result. The respondents •^••^.. ^2- s- Priya are accordingly, directed to make payment of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing D.Ed examination, within a period of tbur months from today. However, this order shalt be subject to all yerifications made by the State regardlng facts pleaded in the petition. No order as to costs. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^