c ,. *‘v\&.v GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) N0.§5.........2011 Santosh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Umashankar Shanna, PETITIONER V \\\ ,W ' w" aged Govt. about Middle 34 School, Years, Somni U.D.T., (Patan), District Durg O VERSUS > ESPONDENTS 1. r"’State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) BEFORE THE HON’BLE HI V§w%"#»q\M (CG) ’. W Through The Secretary, Education Department, D .K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education ofticer ¥ Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.w ‘w / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gsy.No. 75521201 1 Shu’ Somkam Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AV‘Shridhar, P‘L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTXTUTION OF {NDIA ORDER (13.12.2011; The patitioner} who was appointmi en the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Deloarfment in year 1995 is aggrieved by the action of the rcspondeots in not adding two advance increments in his salary even though he did his D.Ed. from Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 2000 after seeking permission for the same iirom the depaiiment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as he had obtained D.Ed Examination certificate, 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 MJ’. & Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Duty and another reported in 2006 {m WJR 96 (CG). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhva 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 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 This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975.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 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Shama versus RESPONDEHTs State of Chhattisgarh 8t. Others w. _.‘_ W. ,., - Government Vida notification dated, 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non— Gazette Class—II . Educational Sewiccs (Non—college Services) Recruiunent and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.1. or B.Ed degree for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance increments only in the condition that he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I, degree at his own cost during service after obtaining permission form the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clalify 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 the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars 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 exnation certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtainingBEd, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to other teachers (UD’I‘). State counsel fairly 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 squarely covered by the above jud gment 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 D.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 s _/. ami in the petition. rsd/ No order as to costs. Pritinker Diwaker Judge r/