BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No .....g [55L .......2011 WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER /V : Hira Mani Verma, S/ o Shri Shyam Lal Verma, / aged about 44 Years, U.D.T V, Govt. Middle School, Fekari Patan District Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS I/ 1. State of Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Through The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S ,Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. District Education officer Durg (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAmi AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.;S).No. 7551/2011 Shri Scmkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shl‘idhar, P.L. far tha Stats. WRIT PETXTIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA ORDER {13.12.201 1) The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher under the School Education Department in year 1995 is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not, adding two advance increments in his salaxy even though he did his D.Ed. from Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal at his own cost in the year 2003 after seeking permission for the same from the department. 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 Bhardwq Vs. Municipai Corporation, Durg and another reported in 2006 {I1} MPJR 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 This circular of dated 23.10.1964 was superceded vide order dated 10.121975. The ‘/ft PETXTIONER Him Mani Vanna versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8r, Others Government vide notmcation‘dated 16.6.1973 amended MP. Non,- Gazette 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.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 clarify 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 Coxut in the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj (supia) elaborately dismissing 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 Achaiya’s case (supra) has held that teachers, not assistant teachers alone, would be entitled to two advance increments on obtaining B.Ed examination certificate after 22.10.1964, as the circular dated. 22.10.1964 does not prescribe any outer limit of the period of obtaining B.Ed, M.Ed 8r, B.T.I. certificate. It has been further held that cimular dated 1.3.99 is applicable to only Assistant Teachers (LDT) and not. to other teachers (UDT). State counsel fairly submits that. principle of law laid down in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj’s case (supra} has attained fmality and case of the petitioner in this petition is also squarely covered by the above judgment 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 in the petition. Sd/- No order as to costs. Pritinker Diwaker Judge