wLW ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (smo. 7990' OF 2010. PETITIONER hanvantri Kumar Sinha, S/o. late Shri Punuram Sinha, aged about 45 years, Head Master, R/o. Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 21, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS . Treasury Officer, vTreasury Account and Pension, Mahasarnund, Distt. Mahasamund (C. G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.Si Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) District Education Officer, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C. G.) WRIT PETITION, UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 1 BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.7600 OF 2010 PETITIONER Dhanvantri Kumar Sinha Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitionerf Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3'” day of January, 201 1) 1. The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department on 29-3-1989 (Annexure P/1) 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 Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year June 2000 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the'petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained 5.Ed Examination certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of MP. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others’ and in view of the judgment of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anotherz. 3. On the other hand, learned 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 traini g upVAto"‘2‘2:‘.‘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 annual increments only if the training is at his cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Government vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non—Gazette Class-ll Ed‘uca'tional Services (Non—college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.l. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. M IAIR 1996 SC 2779 2 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG) The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.llB.Ed./B.T.l. degree at his own cost during service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To ciarifE/ the above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 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.l.. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable toonly Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). Learned State counsel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra) has attained finality and the case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment as also circular dated 24.12.1998. 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 of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of his passing B.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. ll‘i j Sd/— ‘ r Satish K. Agnihotri” Judge j