Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nirmala Pandey vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 3 ... on 17 May, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
1 WP-3157-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3157 of 2013
SMT. NIRMALA PANDEY
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders Annexure P/9 by
which the petitioner's claim for grant of regular increments for acquiring
D.Ed qualification has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not
acquire the said D.Ed qualification prior to the cut off date i.e. 01.03.1999 as
per para 3 of the order dated 14.09.2011 Annexure R/1.
2. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/state
that the State Government had amended the Rules of M.P Teachers
Recruitment Promotion Rules (Non Collegiate Education) 1973 by
notification dated 16/6/1993, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for
advance increment.
3. The petitioner submits that when she 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
2 WP-3157-2013
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
vs. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
3 WP-3157-2013
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. vs.
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.
4. The respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the
petitioner. It is argued that the State Government had made amendment by
notification in Madhya Pradesh Adhayapak Avam Karmachariyon ke Bharti
Avam Paddonatti Niyam, 1973 on 16/6/1993 whereby the holding of
teachers training i.e B.ed/B.T.I had been made compulsory. It is argued that
there was a provision of grant of two advance increments on account of
acquiring B.Ed/B.T.I at own expenses while in service. At the relevant time,
the circular dated 21/9/1974 was in force and after the amendment on
16/6/1993 whereby acquiring of teachers training had been made essential,
the said circular seizes to have effect. It is further stated in the reply that the
Secretary, Department of School Education, Bhopal had occasion to consider
the similar issue in W.P No.7537/2011 decided on 19/5/2011 and after
considering the case of the employee as directed by this Court, Annexure R-
1 was issued and as per sub clause 2 of clause 3 of the said circular, such
teachers who were appointed prior to 16/6/1993 and who had done
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
4 WP-3157-2013
B.Ed/B.T.C/D.Ed prior to 23/10/1964 on their own request would be entitled
for two advance increments from the date of passing of the examination. It is
argued that though the petitioner was appointed prior to 16/6/1993 but had
done B.Ed in the year 2001 after the cut-off date and, therefore, the petitioner
is not entitled for two advance increments on account of acquiring teachers
training.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the question that
arises for consideration is that whether the petitioner who had joined services
in the year 1982 and was granted permission by the department for pursuing
D.Ed diploma course on 13.07.1999 would be entitled for two advance
increments for acquiring D.Ed/B.T.I degree as per the circular prevailing on
the said date or would be governed by the M.P Teachers Recruitment
Promotion Rules (Non Collegiate Education) 1973 amended by the gazette
notification dated 16/6/1993 prescribing qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed as an
"essential qualification" for appointment on the post of teachers?
6. To appreciate the aforesaid question, it is relevant to mention here
that the respondent No.1 had issued a circular dated 21/9/1974 prescribing
that if any person acquires B.Ed/B.T.I degree(training) on his/her expenses
before entering into Government service or during Government service
he/she would be entitled for two advance increments in running time scale of
pay. The issue regarding entitlement of two advance increments after
acquiring B.Ed degree travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of Asha
Saxena (supra) which was decided by the Supreme Court on 7/5/2008. The
Supreme Court considering the circular dated 21/9/1974 held that an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
5 WP-3157-2013
employee is entitled to get two advance increments on account of his
obtaining D.Ed diploma prior to his entering into service. A similar view was
taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Neeta Verma
(supra) decided on 12/8/2011 and held that a teacher who had obtained B.Ed
degree prior to entering into service is also entitled for grant of two advance
increments. Considering the said judgment, writ petition filed by Taranjeet
Kaur Chakel (W.P No.7537/2011(Taranjeet Kaur Chakrel vs. State of M.P
and Ors.)) was allowed by order dated 9/5/2011. The said order passed by the
single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing W.A
No.1220/2011 filed by the State on 20/12/2014. Another Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Nisharani Agrawal (supra) held that teachers
prior to entry in service possessing B.Ed examination at their own expenses
are entitled to revive two advance increments in the light of circular of 1974
unless the same is not superseded. The Division Bench further held that
teachers passed B.Ed examination after entering into services at their own
expenses are also entitled for two advance increments. The State
Government issued another circular dated 24/12/1998 following the
judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan Acharya
(supra) wherein it was held that the employees having obtained D.Ed
diploma at his own expenses after 10/2/1964 and during his services were
entitled for two advance increments from the date of initial appointment.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner had joined the services prior to
16/6/1993 and the department had granted her permission for diploma course
in the year 1999. Her services would not be governed by the recruitment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
6 WP-3157-2013
Rules amended on 16/6/1993. The aforesaid amended Rules by which the
qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed was made an essential qualification would apply
to fresh appointments made after coming into force of the Rules and would
not apply to the teachers who were appointed prior to the amendment in the
Rules. Further Annexure,R-1, which is an order passed by the State
Government, would not supersede the circulars of the State Government
dated 21/9/1974 and circular dated 24/12/1998. The circular dated
24/12/1998 was issued in the light of the judgment passed in the case of
Badrinarayan Acharya (supra) arising from the State of M.P itself and was
dealing with a case of appointment after the amendment in the recruitment
Rules.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and enunciation of law, it is
held that the case of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments on
obtaining B.Ed/D.Ed diploma would be governed by the circular dated
21/9/1974 and also circular dated 24/12/1998 and not by the amended
recruitment rules of 16/6/1993 and Annexure R-1 dated 14.09.2011. The
petitioner was appointed in year 1982 and she was granted permission by the
department to pursue D.Ed diploma course in 1999. Hence, it is held that the
petitioner would be entitled for two advance increments on account of
obtaining D.Ed diploma from the date of acquiring D.Ed qualification and
the respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner and post retiral
benefits and also directed to release the arrears with 6% interest from the
date it became due till the same is paid. The aforesaid exercise shall be
carried out within 60 days from the date of communication of the copy of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13072
7 WP-3157-2013
order passed today and if such exercise is not carried out within the said
period, the arrears shall carry 9% interest instead of 6% interest.
9. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and disposed of.
No order as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
