Teachers who complete professional training (B.Ed/D.Ed/B.T.I.) while continuing to receive full salary and allowances from the government during their service period are not entitled to advance increments.

24/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:-

“10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased

to issue an appropriate writ/direction/order

commanding the respondents to quash the order

dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) with order

dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure P/2) and to provide

the benefit of two increments to the petitioner.

10.2. Any other relief(s), which may deems fit,

looking to the facts & circumstances of the case

may be given to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit as under:-

A. The petitioner is presently working on the post of

Headmaster and is posted at Government Middle School,

Joor, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.). She would

further submit that the petitioner was initially appointed

as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 13-02-1984 in the

Tribal Welfare Department and, after successful

completion of the probation period, his services were

duly confirmed on the said post. She would further submit

that petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of

Upper Division Teacher (U.D.T.) and thereafter again

promoted to the post of Headmaster vide order dated 06-

11-2009. She would also submit that on 29-09-2018, in

compliance of order dated 30-06-2018, the respondent

No.3 merged the posts of the Tribal Welfare Department

into the School Education Department and consequently

the post of the petitioner also stood merged in the School

Education Department.

B. She would contend that the petitioner, after obtaining

permission from the competent authority, took admission

in the year 2017 in the D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary

Education) training course conducted by the National

Institute of Open Schooling, regulated by the Government

of India and authorized by the State Government, on his

own expenses. She would further contend that duration of

the said course was for two years and the petitioner

successfully completed the same in the year 2019. After

completion of the said training, the petitioner submitted

all relevant documents before the department and

claimed two advance increments as per applicable policy.

C. She would argue that similarly situated employees have

been granted benefit of two advance increments on

acquiring the said qualification, however, the same benefit

has not been extended to the petitioner till date, which is

arbitrary and discriminatory.

D. She would further argue that being aggrieved by the

inaction of the respondents, the petitioner earlier

approached this Court and vide order dated 20-02-2020

direction was issued to the authorities to consider the

representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof,

the petitioner made a detailed representation before the

competent authority; however, the same has been

rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated 25-

05-2021 by placing reliance upon circular dated 11-05-

2017. The order dated 25.05.2021 has been passed

without application of mind, therefore, same may be

quashed.

E. She would lastly submit that the respondent authority has

issued orders impugned without interpreting the order

dated 01.12.2016, properly.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner. He would refer to the circular dated 11.05.2017, wherein it is stated that teachers who completed B.ED./D.ED/B.T.I. training during the course of employment and received all benefits attached to the post, including salary and allowances, would not be entitled to two advance increments. He would further submit that after notification dated 17.06.1993, the relevant rules were amended and the said qualification became a requirement for the post of teacher; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to two advance increments.

4. Heard.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the year 1984 and, after obtaining permission from the department, he completed the D.Ed. Course, thereafter, he made a representation for grant of two advance increments, which was rejected by respondent No