SINGLE B£NCw. t IN THE HI^H COURT OF CHHATTES<yARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETCTION (5} NoM!J3 OF 2011 PETCTEONER VERSUS RESPONbENTS r ...-^ ^>/w'/~- :>,>'^y -.N 2. ,< fc^ ^ <\ ^..",x.<^> ^••n^"./'!> '/y'. .An< ^/y - Pradeep Kumar Mukharjee S/o Late Shri V.K. Mukharjee, aged about 39 years, Working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schoo! Semarta!, Biock Bilha. bistt. Biiaspur (C6) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department of School Education b.K.S. Bhavan AAantro!aya Raipur (C&) bistrict Education Officer, Biiaspur, bistt. Bilaspur (C6) Biock Education Officer, Bi!ha, Distt. Bilaspur (C&) WRIT PETCTCON UNbERARTiaE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INblA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JU8TICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR W.P.fSI.NO. 4113/2011 PBTITIONER RBSPOaiDBNTs vei-sus Pradeep Kuixiar Mtikharjee State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Amit Kuniar Sharma, couiisel fbr the peti.tion.er. Shri A.v.Shridhar, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UWDER ARnCLB 226_OF THE CQN8TITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (29.07.2011) The petitioner, who was appointed 011 the post. of Assistant Teacher under the School Educatiou Depertment on 3.1.0.1994 (Aniiexiire P/l) is aggri.eved by the action offhe -respondente in. not adding t^o advaa.ce inicreHieD.ts ia his salar}r even. thoiigh. he did his B,Ed. froin Guni Ghasidas University, Bhopal.. a.t his own cost isi the year 1996 after seeking peroiission for the saine fn>m. the departineBt. Coiiusel for fhe petitioner siibniits fhat the petitioBer is entifled for iwo advance ixicre.m.e.nts as he had obtaiiied B.Ed Examio.ation certificate, in, accordaace with fhe provisions of Circul.ar dated 24.12.98 aD.d in. view oftJie judgnients of Hontile Siipre.me C'ourt. iii the matter of State ajTM*P<. &Afwther Vs^ Bes&ffncsrcsyexn Aehcer^a emd athers reported in 1996 SC 2779 and Yc^hwant Xamar Bhctrdwaf Vs. Municiped Corpanaffon^ Durg and amether reported m 2006 (J^ MPJR 96 (CG). On tlie other haiid, counsel for the Sta.te submits that erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular dated 22.10.:l964 aUowed advance mcrements only to those goverament servaBts who proceeded for training up to 22,10.1964 whether at his own cost or at fhe govemmeiit cost, However, who proceeded on trainiag on or after 23,10.1964 can get two aiinual increments oiily if the training is at •-^^. • -^n'.^°r~.^^-'1"' his cost and not at the cost of fhe Gk>vem,ment, This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide oider dated 10.12.1975. The Goveminent vide notification dated 16.6.1973 ainended M.P. Non- Gazette Class-II Educational Semces (Non-college. Services) Recruitineat aiid ProiKiotion Rules, 1993 added qualification of B.TJ. or B.Ed degree for appointoient on the post ofAssistant Teacher, The petitioner would be entitled for advaD.ee iiicrem.eiits oiily in fh.e condition tliat he had obtained his B.T.I/B.Ed./B.T.I. degrce at his own cost during service after obtainiag permiasion form. the department between 23.10.1964 to 1.3.99. To clarify fhe above position, circulars have already been issued on 6.2.2007 aiid on 30.1.09. Facts, as detailed above, are not io. dispute. This Court .m fhe ma.tter of Yeushwant Kumesr Sharadws^ (supra) elaborately discuss'ing the circulars daled 24, 12,98, 1,3,99 .auid relyia.g .upon the judgment of tlie Hon'ble Apex Court m the matter of BcKfcrfcn.flEre^rare Acharg€K9s ecise (siipra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone^ woiild be entifled to two advaace increm.ents 031 obtBin.ing B,E<1 exainina.tion cerfcificate after 22,10J.964, as fhe circular dated 22,10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period ofobtaining B,Ed, M,Ed & B.TJ. certificate, It has been firrther held that circular dated 1.3,99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not to otfaer teachers (UDT). Shri Thakur fairly submits that prto.ciple of law laid down m Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj?s case (supra} has attained finaUty and ca.se of the petitioner in, fhis petition is also square.ly covered by tfae above judgment as also circular dated 24,12-1998, For tlie aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the paymen.t of two advasice increments froni the date of declaration of the petitioner's B.Ed. examiaatioB result. The respondeiits are accordnigly directed to isiake payxnent of two advance increinents to the petitioner froxn the date ofhis passing B,Ed. examination, witlim a period of four monfhs froni today, However, this order shall be subject to att verlfications 32iade by the State regardmg facts pleaded io. fhe petition. No oxder as to costs. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge