s' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2011 PETITIONER \\'° v^--;-- .-'•'". ^" ..-•'' ,<b17..-';'^" ..•-'' p;:^;..<, RESPONDENTS Smt. Seeta Yadav W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav aged about 45 years, Head Master Govt. Primary School Lodhipara Block-Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS l.^^tate of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ir The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) S.^The Block Education Officer Block Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^' The Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ /• C-OURT QF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR ®B: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P:BT!TXONBR RBSPOSDSNTs W.P.jSl.HO. 7754/2011 Smt,. SeetaYadav versus State of Chha.ttisgarh. & Otliers Shri Ashwaai ShuMa, couxi.sel for the petition.er. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for tlie State. WmT PETITION UMDBR ARTICLE 226 OF_THB,C02i8TSTXJTION OF (16.12.20111 The petitioner, w.h.o was appoiated on the post of Assistaiit Tcach.er under the School Educatiou Department iii yeai' 1984 is aggrieved by the action of tlie respond.ents ni uot a.d.d.m.g fr^/o advaxi.ee increments in her salary even though she did her D.Ed. from Boaixl of Secondajy Educa.tion, Bhopal. at her own. cost ia the year 2000 aiter seeking permission for the same from the departjaent, Counsel for the petitioner subiaits fhat ttie petitioBer is entitied for tivo advaa.ee increnients as she had obtaiiied D,Ed Exaoiiriation certificate, in accordoiice with t3ie provisions of Cii'ciilar dated 24.12.98 aB.cl ia view ofthe judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Couil iii tlie ma.tter of ^fM.P. & Aiwther VB. Scsdrlaara^an Acharya ^thers reported m 1.996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kum.ar BhardtMm/ ¥s»Mmnidpal C^rp-^rati^n, Durg and an^ther reported in 2006 (I^ 96 fCG}. On the other haxid^, counsel for the State subxaits that erstwhile State of Ma.dhya Pradesh vide circixlaT dated 22.10.1964 allowed advaiice increBients only to tliose goveninieTit servajits who proceeded for traio.uig up to 22. 30.1964 whether at his own cost or at tlie govemniep^t cost. Hovvever, who proceeded on traiiim.g on or after 23.10.1964 can.get two annual increBients only if fhe tramiiig is at his cost. aLid not at the cost of the Goveni3iie.nt. This cix'cular of datecl 23.10.1964 was siiperceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The J ^ 1 •:^yh 1 •-'^^•••€€1 •^•^''" '"^j jj CTOveninient vide noti&cation dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P, Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-coUege Services) RecniitBient aad Promotion Rules, 1993 added qupJiflcation ofB.T.I, or B.Ed degree for appouitnient on th-e post ofAssistaiit Teacher. The petitioner woiild be entitled for advaiice incremeBts only in the condition tiiat he had obtaiaed his B.T.I/B.Ed./B,T.I, degree at bis owii cost duiing service after obtainiog pemiissioii fomi tlie department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify tlie above position, circulars have already been issued 011 6.2.2007 aisd on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, ai'e not in dispute. This Court iii tlie matter of Yashwaiit Kiiinar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulai's dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 an.d relyiiig upon the judgiBen.t of the Honl3le Apex Conrt ni the matter of Ba.driiiarayan Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistaat teachers alone, would be entitled to two advaxice iacremeuts on obtah'iiag B,Ed exaBimatioxi certi&cate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of fhe period of obtahinig B.Ed, M.Ed & B.TJ. certificate. It has beeu further held that clrcular dated l.3.99 is applica.ble to oiily Assistaiit Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UDT). State coiinsel fadrly submits that pri.B.ciple of law laid down iii Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supra) has attaiued finality aiid case of the petitioner iii tbis petition is also sqiiai'ely covered by tlie above judgnieiit as also circular dated 24.12.1998, For tlie aforesaid reasons, tlie petitiouer is eiititled to the payment of two advance iacreniesits froin the date of declai'ation of the petitioner's D.Ed. exaniHiation result, The respondents are accordio.gly directed to isiai^e payment of two advaace iiicrenieiits to fhe petitioner from the date ofhis passiiig D.Ed, exainiaation, withiii a period of four m.onths froni today. However^ this order shall be sul^ject to aU verifications made by the State regarding facts pleacled ia fhe petition. No order as to costs. Pritinker Diwaker Judge