C‘g‘koo!/’ [: BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH V 1 AT BILASPUR LC.G.) ‘ ’ H W.P.(S) No. 5533 OF 2011 T PETITIONER : / Sam Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu, aged about 48 years, U.D.T Govt. Middle School, Semariya, (Bhainso) District Janjgir ‘ ¥ Champa (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1.A State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, :Education Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) District Education officer Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa (C.G) WRIT FETITOE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. > @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIOHER w.p.gS).No. 553312011 Sant Ram Sahu VCI‘SUS State' of C.G. &. Othexs Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petiiirmer. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ORDER (19.09.2011) The petitioner, Who was appointsd on the post of Assistant Teacher under the $chool Education Depannmnt on 31.12.1986 (Anncxure P/ 1) is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not adding two advance incmmcnts in his salaxy even though he did his D.Ed. mm C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur at his own oost in theyear 2005 after seeking permission for the same mm the department. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the peh'tioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination cextihcate, in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 24.12.98 and in View of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court: in the matter of State of M.P. 8r. Anothe? Vs. Badrinaxayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhaldwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another repormd in 2006 (II) MPJR 96 (CG). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 allowed advance increments only to those government servants who proceeded for training up to 22. 10. 1964 whether at his own cost or at the government cost. However, who proceeded on naming on or alter 23.10.1934 can get two annual increments only if the training is at his‘cost and not at the cost of the Government. This circular of dated \ mama 23.10.1964 was supemeded vide order dated 10.12.1975. Th5 Government vide nowcation dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Mm- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-college Sewices) Recruitment and Pmmotion Rules, 1993 added qual$cation of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointment 0n the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance incmments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. deme at his own cost during seivioe ader ' obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. 'I‘o clarify the above position, cimulaxs have already been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, axe not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bhaiwiwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulam 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 certincate after 22.10.1964, as the cimular dated 22.10.1964 does not piescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed as B.’l‘.l. ceru'hcate. It has been further held that cimular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LD’I‘) and not to other teachers (UUI‘). Shri Thakur fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra} has attained duality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely coveted by the above judgment as also circular dated 24. l2. 1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of two advance increments hem the date of declaration of the petitioner’s D.Ed. examination result. The respondents axe acconiingly directed to make payment of two advance incxements to the petitioner nom the date of his passing B.Ed. examination, within a period of four months nom today. However, this Older shall be subject to all verihcations made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the pen'tion. Pritinker Diwakar Judge 8d]— No gtder asto costs.