c^i "' ^ a 3 ,T».S EFB F.^;. '?c° a S .-^ S^S SINGiE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. ^!| OF 2011 Sachinand Patnayak s/o PETITIONER Chakradhar Patnaik Aged 52 lst!<ilo(Le-.^a*)'.<'l •- i1'11h Governinent MT^s-Harijan Mohalla .^•'' VSf€^'^ ^186";' -...•••-"" ^) A®&-"" RESPONDENTS (1) (2) Gharghoda District Rajnandgaon (C.G) Qsv-f-^- ,i^r. VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D^K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh ( C.G.) (3) ' Block Education Officer Ghargoda District Raigarh (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WA. r HIGH COURT Of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITIMKBR DIWAKER W.P.ISS.MO. 6811/2011 Sachiiiaad Patnayak versus State of Chhattisgarh Aaotiier Shri Sonikant Venua, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sbashaak Thaltur, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION T'he petitioner, who was appouited on the post of Assistant Teacher iinder the School Education Departinent ia year 1984 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents ia not adding tivo advaace increm.ents ia his salary even fhough he did his D.Ed. froiu Madhyamik Shifcsha Maudal; Bhopal at his own cost iu the year 1998 after seeking permission for tbe same from fhe departnient. Counsel for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is entitled for two advaace increiaents as he had obtaiaed D.Ed Examination certificate, ia accordance wifb. fhe provisious of Circular dated 24.12.98 aad ia view of tlie judgiaents of Hon'ble Supreine Court in fhe matter of Stdte ofM.P. Sa Another Vs. BesSaristarayan Aeheuyei anS others reported m. 199S SC 2779 ecniS. 7astwM.nt Kunuir Bhardwe^ ^s. S^iniciptd CorporcsSS.on, Burg cmd another reported m 2006 (iy 3 JS 96 (CGj. On the ottier hand, counsel fer the State subiaits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 ailowed advance increiiients only to those govemnient servaats who proqeeded for training up to 22.10.1964 whether at his own cost or at the govemnient cost. However, who proceeded on traiaiag on or after 23.10.1964 caa get two aiuiual iaci^iaents only if the traming is at his cost aild not a.t fhe cost of the Govemnaent. TIiis circiilar of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Govemment vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services) Recruitraent and Proinotion Rules, 1993 added quatt&cation of B.T.I. or B.Ed degree for appointaient on the post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be en.titled for advance iacreinents only ia the condition fhat he had obtaraed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost duriag service after obtainiag perEnission form fhe department betweea 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify fhe above position, circulars have already been issued ou 6.2.2007 aod on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not ia dispute. This Court ia fhe niatter ofYashwant Kuniar Bharadwaj (supraj elaborately discussing ttie circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 aad retyiag upon fhe judgiuent of the Hoa'ble Apex Court in fhe laatter of Badrinarayaa Achai5ra's case (supra) has held ftiat teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entifled to tsso advance increiiients on obtamin.g B.Ed examiaation certificate after 22.10.1964, as fhe cir'ciilar dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaiamg B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been farfber held fhat circitlar dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) aiid not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly subinits that. principle of law laid down in. Yashwaat Kiuaar Bharadwaj's case (supra} has attained finaUty and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by fhe above judginent as also circular dated 24.12.1998. For the aforesaid icasons, the petitioner is entitled to fhe payinent of two advaace iacreinents froin fhe date of declaration of the petitioner's D.Ed. examiaation result. The respondents are accordiagly directed to make payment of two advance iticrements to the petitioner frora the date ofhis passiag D.Ed. exanunation, wifhta a period of four raonths Irom. today. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications inade by the State regardiag facts pleaded ui tlie petition. '—-—- No order as to costs. Sd/- i Pritinker Diwaker; Judge