® © $mg!e Eenah BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(S) No....?1§.5.6........... 2011 / PETITIONEg" : Vedvyas Vaishnaw, S / o CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. " $1 \ \ w A.g’ ” \a I, " Shri Goverdhan Das Vaishnaw, aged about 41 Years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Shirsa—Kala Patan, District Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1./ State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Department, D.K‘S Bhawan Raipur, (C.G.) .x/ Y L 2. District Education officer Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF a THE (7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p.gsy.wo. 7555/201 1 Shn‘ Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' PaVShridhar, RL. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTKON OF INDKA ORDER (13.12.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed :o'n the post of Asgistant Teachar under the School Educaticn Department in year 1997 is aggrieved by the action of the. respondents 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 2002 after seeking permission for the same from the department. Coun sel 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 ofMP. as Another Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya and others reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yashwant Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Municipal Corpora&on, Durg and another reported in 2006 {m WJR 96 (CG). On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that erstwhile State of Madhya 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 This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.12.1975.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 Vedvyas Vaishnav versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhatrisgarh &. Others Government vide nou'fication dated 16.6.1973 amended M.P. Non- Gazctte Class—II Educational Services (Non-college Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.T.I. 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.’I‘.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 clarify the above position, circulars have already been issd on 6.2.2007 and on 30.1.09. Fts, as detailed above, are not in dispute. This Court in the matter of Yashwant Kuinar Bharadwaj (supra) elaborately discussing the circulars dated 24.12.98, 1.3.99 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court i the matter of Badrinarayan Achaiya’s case supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance incments on obtaining B.Ed examition certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular ted 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed 85 B.T.I. certificate. It has bee furtr ld that circular dated 1.3.99 is ”applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) a not to other teachers (UDT). State couel fairly submits that principle of law laid down in Yashwa mar Bharwaj’s case (supra.} has attained finality and case of t petitioner in this petition is also sqrely covered by the aove judgment as also circular dated 24. 12. 1998. For the aforesaid reaso, 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 @ ue ac n ( re na da n he he nd ns nt Ku ad he ua b ns in the petition. r _‘ SM- No order as to costs. Pritmker _ Duwaker . Judge fa.