ORDER
K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. All the petitions are being decided by common order as question of law and facts involved in these petitions are identical.
2. Petitioners are claiming two advance increments on the basis of acquiring B.Ed. qualification on their own cost during the tenure of service. In this regard the petitioners have placed reliance to various circulars of the State Government and two judgments of this Court. Division Bench of Gwalior Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Jain and Ors., W.P. No. 1244/1999 and Single Bench of Indore Bench in Dwarkesh v. State of M.P. and Anr., W.P. No. 1309/2000, both decided on 30-8-2003, in which this question has been dealt with at length and held that the employees who have passed B.Ed. Examination on their own cost after entering into the service are entitled for two advance increments as per the circular issued by the State Government.
3. The relevant dates in the aforesaid cases in nutshell are as under:–
W.P. No.
Name of Petitioners
Date of appointment
Date of passing B.Ed.
2218
Ku. Neena Dwivedi
12-1-84
14-7-92
5/03
Smt. Bhawna Singh
5-10-88
3-7-89
22323/03
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari
22-2-86
14-7-92
Harish Kumar Tiwari
13-3-87
24-12-98
22523/03
Rakesh Mishra
31-3-86
1993 (Ann. A-1)
In W.P. No. 22323/2003 both the petitioners Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and Harish Kumar Tiwari were granted aforesaid two increments, but subsequently vide orders (Annexures A-11 and Annexure A-12) filed in the petition, the increments were withdrawn with an order of recovery of the excess amount paid, from the petitioners.
4. The Division Bench in Dharmendra Kumar Jain (supra), has considered the issue in Paras 7 and 8 of the order, held :–
“However, we have considered the petition on merits as well. In this case what we find is that it is not disputed that respondent Nos. 1 to 15 had passed their B.Ed. examinations at their own costs. The Tribunal in its impugned order has followed its earlier decision disposing of O.A. No. 778/93, M.P. Teachers Association and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 22-7-1997 and O.A. No. 427/94, Hirja Rajni v. State of M.P. and Ors., decided on 12-2-1998. It has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in decided on 22-7-1996.
A perusal of the judgment passed by the Apex Court indicates that the Hon’ble Apex Court had found that the Government had taken a decision on October 22, 1964 to allow the benefit of option to the candidates to go on training for improving their qualifications either at their own cost or at the expenses of the Government and since the decision had been taken on that date, its being taken as the cut-off date was perfectly valid in law and no fault could be found in fixing the said date as the cut-off date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further observed that such Teachers who had gone on training at Government expenses were not eligible for two advance increments but those teachers who had gone on training at their own expenses, were eligible for two advance increments as mentioned in the order issued by the State Government on 22-10-1964. It was noticed that those teachers who had gone on training on Government expenses were deprived of the advance increments.”
Thereafter recently, learned Single Judge of Indore Bench has also considered this question at length, following Dharmendra Kumar Jain’s case (supra) and considering the various circulars issued by the State Government dated 16-2-1998, 24-12-1998, 1-3-1999, 3-5-2002 and 26-7-2003 and various orders of the Tribunal in the case of Dwarkesh (supra) held :–
“After considering the aforesaid Circulars issued by State Government as well as after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra) and the D.B. decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Jain and also the affidavit filed by the OIC of the case in W.P. No. 2880/03 that the Government has already extended the benefit of two advance increments by Circular dated 26-7-2003 (Annexure R-7) to the teachers who were appointed prior to 16-6-93 and have obtained B.Ed./B.T.I. degree between 23-10-64 to 1-3-99 while in service at their own expenses. In both the cases and in all other connected petitions the petitioners have been appointed prior to 16-6-93 and have passed B.Ed./B.T.I. examinations between 23-10-64 to 1-3-99 at their own expenses, while in service. Therefore, all the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments, as their cases are covered by the Circular (Annexure R-7). So far as the question of passing B.Ed./B.T.I. training examinations, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they have passed this training examinations through correspondence course, after taking due permission from the State Government or the concerned Department and this fact has been specifically mentioned in W.P. No. 2354/03, and, in reply, the State Government has not denied this fact, but the only contention of the respondent/State is that after passing the examinations in 1993-94, they have made demand in the year 2002, which is bared by time. Admittedly, the petitioners and other teachers are demanding increments regularly and the Government has also paid the same to some of the employees. Therefore, looking to the fact that the petitioners/employees are agitating the matter in the Courts, this contention of the Government can not be accepted that the claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation.
Accordingly all the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the State Government shall pay two advance increments to all the petitioners those who are covered by Circular (Annexure R-7) within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of this order. In the cases the State Government has already released increments to the teachers the same shall not be recovered. In so many other petitions the Tribunal and the High Court has already directed for the payment of the same and those orders become final as they have not been challenged anywhere, therefore, the State Government can not be permitted to take any decision which is detrimental to its employees. No order as to costs.”
5. In view of the aforesaid settled law by the Division Bench in Dharmendra Kumar Jain (supra) followed in Dwarkesh (supra), it is now settled that if a teacher after joining service gets training of B.Ed./B.T.I. on his/her own cost, he/she is entitled for two increments. Purpose of granting two additional increments to the teacher is to encourage the teacher to get B.Ed./B.T.I., training so that his profession acumenship may be improved and the students may get the benefit of the training. The entire purpose of the aforesaid is to improve the quality of education which is to be imparted to the students. The circular of the School Education Department, State of M.P., dated 26-7-2003 has clarified the aforesaid position and now the State Government itself has decided to grant two increments to all the teachers, who were appointed on or before 16-6-1993 and have got B.Ed./B.T.L, training certificate successfully between 23-10-64 and 1-3-99 on their own costs. This circular reads as under :–
e/; izns’k ‘kklu
Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx
ea=ky;
cYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky & 462004
vkns’k
Hkksiky] fnukad
26&7&2003
Øekad ,Q 18&45@2002@fo-iz-@20 %& bl
foHkkx ds lela[;d vkns’k fnukad 24&12&98 ,oa 1&3&99 rFkk
6&2&66 ds vuqØe es rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; esa nk;j ;kfpdk Øekad 1999@2000
ds fu.kZ; fnukad 27&3&2000 rFkk fofHkUu U;k;ky;hu fu.kZ;ksa ds ifjikyu
esa jkT; ‘kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd %&
fnukad 16&6&1993 rd fu;qä ,sls lHkh
f’k{kd] ftUgksaus Lo;a dks O;; ij lsokdky ds nkSjku] foHkkxh; vuqefr izkIr dj ch-,M-@ch-Vh-vkbZ-
dks izf’k{k.k mikf/k izkIr fd;k gks ftUgksus 23&10&1964 ls
1&3&1999 rd dh vof/k esa ch-,M-@ch-Vh-vkbZ- ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ djus ds
fnukad ls nks osru o`f) dh LohÑfr iznku dh tkrh gSA
e/;izns’k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls
rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj
lgh@& ,y-ds- oekZ]
mi&lfpo] e-iz- ‘kklu]
Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkxA
6. Consequently, these petitions are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners are entitled for two advance increments from the date of passing B.Ed. Examination. In W.P. No, 22323/2003 the impugned orders (Annexures A-11 and Annexure A-12), so far as it relates to petitioners Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and Harish Kumar Tiwari, by which the aforesaid increments were slopped with an order to recover the paid amount are hereby quashed and it is directed that all the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid increments. The respondents/State Government shall pay two increments to all the petitioners as directed hereinabove. Arrears of the increments shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. In future, the aforesaid increments be paid to the petitioners alongwith their salary. No order as to costs.