ORDER

1. Regard being held to the similitude of the nature of the petition and reliefs both the petitions are being disposed of by the common order.

2. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to grant the benefits of two advance increments w.e.f June 1999 and refix the pay of the petitioner and post retiral benefits alongwith the arrears with interest on account of obtaining D.Ed diploma during the course of employment after seeking due permission from the department.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are noted from W.P No.19697/2022 (Jagdish Chandra Chawda v. the State of M.P and Ors.)

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Deputy Teacher by an order dated 31.12.1986 on the consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 300/- per month and after completion of 2 years of service he was appointed and posted as Assistant Teacher in the then regular pay scale of Rs. 975-1650/- + admissible dearness allowance w.e.f. 9.1.1987, by an order dated 2.3.1988. The petitioner sought permission from the department for pursuing D.Ed. Diploma course which was accorded to him by order dated 3.12.1997, vide Sr. No. 27, and accordingly, the petitioner completed his 2 years D.Ed. Diploma course during the course of his employment, on his own cost, vide copies of his D.Ed. Marksheets. The petitioner submits that when he entered into services under Respondent No.1 Department, the Circular dated 21.9.1974 issued by Respondent No. 1 Department was in force, according to which if any person acquires B.Ed./BTI Degree (Training) at his/her expenses before entry into Government service or during Government service, he/she is entitled to two advance increments in running time scale of pay. The petitioner further submits that the aforesaid Circular dated 21.9.1974 remained in force and on the basis of aforesaid Circular only, the apex Court in the case of Smt. Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors. [CA No. 3408/2008, decided on 7.5.2008] allowed a similar claim made by one of the Lecturers of Respondent No.1 Department holding him entitled to get two advance increments on account of his obtaining D.Ed.Diplomate prior to his entry into service. Even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Anr. v. Smt. Neeta Verma [WA No. 89/2009, decide on 12.8.2011] has affirmed and acknowledged a similar claim made by one of the similarly situated teacher serving the Respondent No.1 Department. Not only this, even the Principal Seat of this Court in the case of Taranjeet Kaur Chakrel v. State of M.P. & ors. (W.P No.7537/2011(S)) , vide order dated 9.5.2011 has allowed a similar writ petition claiming benefit of two advance increments on account of obtaining B.Ed. Degree. The aforesaid order passed by the Single Judge in the case of Smt.Taranjeet Kaur Chakrel (Supra) stood also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WA No.1220/2011, decided on 20.12.2014. Thus, the petitioner being similarly situated, was also entitled to be granted similar relief. Moreover, in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Smt. Nisharani Agrawal and Ors. reported in 2005(II) MPJR SN 18, the petitioner is entitled to get relief prayed for by him in this Writ Petition. The petitioner submits that even in terms of Circular dated 24.12.1998 issued by Respondent No. 1 following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case State of M.P & Ors. v. Badrinarayan Acharya & Ors. reported in 1996 (10) SCC 271 at his own expenses after 22.10. 1964 and during his service was entitled to be granted two advance increments from the date of his initial appointment, claiming which, he has filed W.P.(S)No.1043/2004 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 23.11.2004 directing the respondent to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner.

5. The respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the petitioner. It