IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCARH AT BILASPUR w.p. rs) No, ypv\°) /2011 PETITIONER ^se^..:...-^"i'<r ^••"•^"\^[ RESPONDENTS: v VERSUS 1. 2. 3.' ^. Ashok Kumar Dewangan S/o Kachchhi Ram Dewangan, Aged about 49 years, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School Rajanavagaon, Block- Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham- (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department ofEducation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The District Education officer, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) Block Education officer, Bodla, Distt.Kabirdham- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA HIGH COIXRT OP aiHATnfiMSARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON*BLB MRj JU8TICB PRITUIKER DIWAKBR W.P.ISLNO. 3849/2011 PBTITIONBR RBSPONDBNTs versns Ashok Kumar Dewajagaii State ofCIihattiisgarli 8s Others Sfari Deepak Jain, coun®elfor tiie •petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICSLB226 QFTttB OONSTITUTION QF IKDIA ORDBR (18.07.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed oa fhe post of Assistant Teacher under fhe School Education Department on 30.12.84 (Annexure P/1) is a^grieved by fhe actioci of tiie respondents in not adding two advance increments ia his salary cvea fhough he did iais D.Ed. fix>m C.G. Madhyaouk Sfaiksfaa Mandal, Raipiur at his own cost ia the year Jiine 2006 aJfter secldng permlssioti for tfce same ftom fhe departiaent. Counsel for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitted for two advaace mcrements as he had obtaiaed D.E^i Exammation certifioate, ia accordan^ce witih fhe provisions of Cisx'xilar dated 24,12.98 and ia view offhe judgments of Hoxi'ble Supreme Coiirt m fhe matter of State of M.P. & Anofher Vs. Badrmarayan Acharya a&d others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kiitaar Bhaidwal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg aud anofhier reportead io. 2006 (M) MPJR 96 (CG). On the ofher hand, counsel for the State submil®that erstwhfle State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 aUovred advance i&crements only to those goveromieiit servants who proceeded for traming up to 22.10,1964 whether at his own cast or at tfae goverament cost- However, who proceeded on tradmmg on or after 23.10.1964 caxi get two annual incrcmente only if fhe trainmg is at ^ '^ his cost aad not at fhe cost offhe GovenimLCSit This oircuAar ofdated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The GoveroDient vide notification dated 16.6.1973 amended N.R Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitaient aad Promotion RuleSy 1993 added quali&catteii of B.TJ, or B.Ed degrce for appoiatment on the post ofAsaistantTeacher, The petitioner woiild be entlfled ft?r advaace mcremeats oxily m the condition fhat he had obtained his B.TJ/B.Ed./B.T.I. degre^ at his own cost during sendce after obtamiag permission foirm t3he department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify fhe abow position, circulars have alrcady been issued oa 6.2.2N307 aiid on 30.1.09. Pacts, as detafled above, are iiot in dispute- Thia Court ia the matter ofYashwaat Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) edaboiately disciiBsiog the circiilans dated 24,12,98, 1,3,99 aad relymg upon the judgment of the HonT3le Apex Court in fhe matter of Badrmajnayan Acharya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistent teacbers alone, would be entitled to two advance mcrcmente on obteimng B.Ed examiaation certsficate after 22,10»1964y as tihie circular dated 22,10.1964 does iiot prescribe any outer Umit of the period of obtaming B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. certificate. It has becn further held fhat circular dated 1.3.99 is appUcable to only Asaistant Teachers (LDT) and not to ofher teachers (UDT). Shri Das fairly submits fhat prtociple of law laid dowii ia Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj'8 case (supra} has attained jBbaaHty and case of fhe petitioner m fhis petition is also squarely covered by fhc above judgment as also circnlar dated 24,12-1998, For fhe aforesaid reasons, fhe pelitioner is entitled to fhe payment of two advaace increineiite fioni fhe date of declaralAon of fhe petitioner's D.Ed. examiaation result. The respoiidents are accordiagly directed to make payiaeiit of two advance mcrements to the petitioner frosii fhe date ofhis passiag D.Ed. examisiatioii, wifhin a period of four monfhs fix>ni today. However, this onter shaB be subject to aU verifications made by fhe State reganiiag facts pleaded ia fhe petitibn< No order as to c^sts, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge