SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 3252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Prabhash Kumar Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS/4198/2019



##PAGE1##

Page 1 of 6

(WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019)

2026:CGHC:5063

Digitally

signed by NAFR

SISTA

SISTA SOMAYAJUL U

SOMAYAJULU Date:

2026.01.30 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

17:47:11

+0530

WPS No. 4198 of 2019

Prabhash Kumar Joshi, S/o Late Bisahuram Joshi, Aged about 51

years, R/o Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School

Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir

Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Block Education Officer, Block Belha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

AND

WPS No. 4512 of 2019

Pravin Mishra, S/o Late Ramlakhan Mishra, Aged about 42 years,

R/o New Sarkanda, Jabdapara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School

Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir

Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Block Education Officer, Block Belha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer.

##PAGE2##

Page 2 of 6

(WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019)

Single Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

29/01/2026

1. Since both these writ petitions involve common question of law and

fact, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order.

2. By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought appropriate

writ directing the respondents for grant of two advance increments in

lieu of acquiring D.Ed. certificate at their own expenses after joining

the service on the post of Assistant Teacher and after due permission

from the State Government. Eventually, the petitioners have

challenged the order rejecting the representation for grant of two

advance increments.

3. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the

petitioners in both the writ petitions, would submit that the

respondent authorities are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the

representation by recording finding perverse to the record.

4. Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, learned State counsel, would submit that

similar issue was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in

WPS No.2051/2017 (Smt. Neelam Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and

others), decided on 25-4-2024, and the writ petition has been

dismissed against which Smt. Neelam Dubey, the petitioner therein,

filed writ appeal being WA No.501/2024, which was also dismissed

by the writ appeal court on 9-8-2024 and thereafter, she filed SLP

##PAGE3##

Page 3 of 6

(WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019)

before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench

which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 2-7-

2025 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.24106/2025. As such, the

finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner therein is not

entitled for two advance increments in lieu of obtaining the degree of

D.Ed. has become final and therefore the present two writ petitions

are liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the

material available on record with utmost circumspection.

6. In WPS No.2051/2017, the following was the question placed for

consideration before the learned Single Judge: -

“1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of

two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed. Certificate at

her own expenses prior to joining in service on the post of

Assistant Teacher as also to quash the order dated 1.12.2016

(Annexure P/8), whereby, the State has denied the said benefit

to the persons who were appointed after 16.6.1993.”

7. After due consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition by observing as under: -

“7. The Recruitment Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Non-

Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Services)

Recruitment and Promo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top