C'li'irta IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S} N0. ")]^> OF2Q11 PETITIONER .^^ '^'.•^l^/(ri ^^'x^' v^y.^ ..s---"^ ..•••"/ \ ^-^J <^*" ?.. RESPONDENTS Mantram Yadav, S/o Shri Rangwa Ram, aged about 42 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Shikari Dera, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Education District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, ^ District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA versus Maatrain Yadav StateofChIiatdss Others Shri P.P.Sahu, couiisel for the petitioner. Shri N.Natia Roy, P.L. for the State. The petitioner, who was appoiated 011 tlie post of Assistaiit Teacher iinder the School Education Departm.ent in vear 1994 is aggrieved by ttie actiois. of the respoudents .in not addiag two advance ia.crem.ents iu his salarv even tbougb he did his D.Ed. fi-oin Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 1997 after seekiag perniission for the sam.e from. fhe departnieilt. Counsel for the petitioner subinits tiiat the petitioner is entitled for two advance increinents as he had obtain.ed. D.Ed Exaniination certt&cate, ia accordance witli fhe provisions of CircuJai- dated 24.12.98 and in view offhe judgments of Hoa'ble Supreaie Court in the matter of State of3I.P. & Another Vs. Sa&rinarcajem. Acharya and others reported ra 1996 SC 2779 and. Ttsshuieint Eumar BHar&wcij Vs. Munlclpal Cofporation, Su.rg anO. anotficr reported in 200S ffS MPJR S6 fCG). On fhe other hand, counsel for the State subiaits fhat erstavhfle State of Madhva Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.1964 atlowed advan.ee iDcreinents only to those govenuiient servants who pToceeded fbr trainiug up to 22.10.1964 whefher at liis ov,~a cost or at the govemiaeut cost. However, who proceeded on trainiag on or after 23.10.1964 caii get two aiuiual increinents onlv if the traiauig is at his cost and not at the cost of the Goveminent. This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was siiperceded vide order dated 10.12.1975. The Goverrunent vide notification dated 16.6. 1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Seivices (Non-coUege Services) v^ Recruitinent and Proinotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.i. or B.Ed degree for appoiataient on. fb.e post ofAssistant Teacher. The petitioner would be entitled for advance iiicreilients only ia. the condition fh.at he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degree at his own cost during service after obtaiaing permission fonu the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify the above position, circiilars have ateady been issued on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not ia dispute. This Coi-u-t ia fhe uiatter ofYashwaut Kum.ar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing tlie circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgraent of fhe Hon'ble Apex Court ia fhe inatter of BadruiarayaD. Achaiya's case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistaat teachers alone, would be eutifled to two advance in.crem.ents on obtaining B.Ed exauiiuation certificate after 22.10. 1964, as the circular dated 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of tb.e period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed & B.T.I. cerfcificate. It has been further held that circular dated 1.3.99 is appUcable to only Assista-nt Teachers (LDT) aud not to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly submits that pruiciple of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj's case (supia),;has attained fiiiality and case of the petitioner ui this petition is also squarely covered by fhfi above judginent a.s also circuliai- dated 24.12.1998. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the payinent of two advaace increiuents froin the date of declaratioa of the petitioner's D.Ed. examuiation result. The respondents are accordingly directed to inalce paynient of two advance increiiients to the petitioner froiu. the date ofhis passing D.Ed. exainiaation, witMa a period of four nionfhs froin. today. However, this order shail be subject to att verifications made by the State regardiag facts pleaded ia fhe petition. No order as to costs. Pritiiiker Diwaker ie