As per case facts, petitioners challenged an order dated 22.11.2019, which denied them two advance increments because they were appointed after 16.06.1993, arguing the denial was unsustainable. The question arose ...
1
CGHC010006522020 2026:CGHC:36883
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 124 of 2020
1 - Deepak Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Shri Chakradhar Pd. Tiwari, Aged About
45 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Jail Para, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Jugeshwar Pd. Nandkar, S/o. Shri Bhagturam Nandkar, Aged About 45
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Bade Gantuli, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Narsingh Sidar, S/o. Shri Nanhuram Sidar, Aged About 46 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Kharri Chhote, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Shivkumar Swarnakar, S/o. Shri Deendayal Swarnakar, Aged About 49
Years, Head Master, Primary Govt. Girls School Rajapara, Sarangarh,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Smt. Shika Singh, W/o. Shri Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Bardarha Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
2
6 - Devcharan Prasad Sahu, S/o. Shri Shivprasad Sahu, Aged About 47
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Nekainhar Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Gopesh Kumar Pandey, S/o. Shri Mahendranath Pandey, Aged About
48 Years, Head Master, Primary School Amlideepa, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Laxmi Bahadur Dewangan, S/o. Shri Shyamsunder Dewangan, Aged
About 44 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Tengnapali, Sarangarh,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Belas Kujur, S/o. Shri Laidan Kujur, Aged About 48 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Jalmala, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o. Shri Nakched Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Rampur, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
11 - Prahlad Patel, S/o. Shri Shyamlal Patel, Aged About 49 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Jhilgitar, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
12 - Ramashankar Sahu, S/o. Shri Premlal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Saradih, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
13 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Laxman Prasad Sahu, Aged About 46
3
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Singhanpur, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
14 - Lav Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Navdha Ram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Borida, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
15 - Lochan Prasad Mehar, S/o. Shri Nohar Prasad Mehar, Aged About 44
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Kuraha, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
16 - Maniram Yadav, S/o. Shri Motiram Yadav, Aged About 49 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Chantipali, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
17 - Ravishankar Tiwari, S/o. Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 47 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Gopal Mouna, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
18 - Shobharam Laxme, S/o. Shri Ghasidas Laxme, Aged About 51 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Chatauna, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
19 - Cheduram Chouhan, S/o. Shri Sonoram Chouhan, Aged About 51
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Pachpedi, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
20 - Jayant Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Avadhram Patel, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Tamandih, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
4
21 - Rajendra Prasad Manthan, S/o. Shri Shivlal Manthan, Aged About 49
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Nandeli, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
22 - Smt. Hemlata Kujur, W/o. Shri Nimkumar, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary Govt. Girls School, Ulkhar Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
23 - Smt. Ranjna Toppo, W/o. Shri Kuldeep Toppo, Aged About 44 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Limbhata Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
24 - Asaf Minj, S/o. Shri Vishram Minj, Aged About 47 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Mungahpara Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
25 - Muritram Mahilane, S/o. Shri Amarsai Mahilane, Aged About 44
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Tadipar, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
26 - Deenanath Patel, S/o. Shri Madulal Patel, Aged About 52 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Machghoda Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
27 - Naresh Kumar Kaiwarth, S/o. Shri Panchram Kaiwarth, Aged About
50 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Tedinala, Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
28 - Umashankar Anant, S/o. Shri Brijlal Anant, Aged About 44 Years,
5
Head Master, Primary School, Machladih, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
29 - Parmanand Patel, S/o. Shri Bahatram Patel, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Boirmal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
30 - Smt. Sunita Tirki, W/o. Shri Kuldeep Tirki, Aged About 46 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Patelpali, Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
31 - Vishwanath Kurre, S/o. Shri Shambhuram Kurre, Aged About 45
Years, Head Master, Primary School Achanakpali Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
32 - Lalsai Chouhan, S/o. Shri Samaruram Chouhan, Aged About 46
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Ulkhar Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
33 - Manoj Kumar Bhagat, S/o. Shri Ravindra Prasad Bhagat, Aged About
43 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Khairjhiti Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
34 - Smt. Satya Ijardhar, W/o. Shri Vijay Ijardhar, Aged About 46 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Kamlanagar Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
35 - Dileshwar Pd Moriya, S/o. Shri Bhagirathi Moriya, Aged About 50
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Kapisda - B Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
6
36 - Amritlal Jhangde, S/o. Shri Jugutram Jhangde, Aged About 55 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Kansa Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
37 - Smt. Vimla Yadav, W/o. Shri Shyamsunder Yadav, Aged About 54
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Pratapganj Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
38 - Sethram Sarthi, S/o. Shri Ushram Sarthi, Aged About 52 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Chichpani Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
39 - Jeevan Chouhan, S/o. Shri Anandram Chouhan, Aged About 51
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Dalparpali Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
40 - Unmesh Swarnakar, S/o. Shri Umashankar Swarnakar, Aged About
47 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Bhikampura Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
41 - Chandrashekar Patel, S/o. Shri Nayran Patel, Aged About 46 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Rayagula Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
42 - Vipin Kishore Manhar, S/o. Shri Nandlal Manhar, Aged About 47
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Dalal Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
43 - Ashish Vishwas, S/o. Shri Avni Kumar, Aged About 49 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Boro Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh,
7
Chhattisgarh.
44 - Krishna Kanhaiyya Nayak, S/o. Shri Thakurram Nayak, Aged About
54 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Naraitikra Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
45 - Ravishankar Bharadwaj, S/o. Shri Rajaram Bharadwaj, Aged About
53 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Barpali Pussaur, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
46 - Gulabram Soni, S/o. Shri Shivcharan Prasad, Aged About 44 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Chiraipani East Sarangarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
47 - Smt. Kanchanlata Mehar, W/o. Shri Kunjbihari Mehar, Aged About
49 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Turkumuda Pussour, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
48 - Smt. Gouri Mohanti, W/o. Shri Sushant Kumar, Aged About 44
Years, Head Master, Primary School Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
49 - Devlal Patel, S/o. Shri Shyamlal Patel, Aged About 49 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Gatewani, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
50 - Padamlochan Patel, S/o. Shri Laxmanji Patel, Aged About 44 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Barpali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
51 - Nirakar Patel, S/o. Shri Babulal Patel, Aged About 54 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Panjhar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
8
52 - Chandrajeet Patel, S/o. Shri Shivprasad Patel, Aged About 44 Years,
Head Master, Primary School Urdana, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
53 - Lekhram Patel, S/o. Shri Roopchand Lal, Aged About 44 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Amlibhona, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
54 - Ramadhar Ratre, S/o. Shri Nakched Ram, Aged About 53 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Pandripani, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
55 - Bharatlal Dansena, S/o. Shri Banshilal Dansena, Aged About 50
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Junwani, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
56 - Ashish Sharma, S/o. Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About 40
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Lakha, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
57 - Ramprasad Behra, S/o. Shri Ganpat Prasad, Aged About 41 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Sangitai, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
58 - Damodhar Prasad Patel, S/o. Shri Shivnandan Patel, Aged About 48
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Sardamal, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
59 - Sanjiv Kumar Sethi, S/o. Shri Subhashchandra Sethi, Aged About 46
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Jhalguda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
60 - Madanlal Patel, S/o. Shri Bhagirathi Patel, Aged About 51 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Lamidarha, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
9
61 - Janakram Bhoi, S/o. Shri Krishnachand Bhoi, Aged About 52 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Ambedkar Awas, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
62 - Santosh Kumar Rathiya, S/o. Shri Tandaram Rathiya, Aged About 46
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Regda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
63 - Madhavram Sidar, S/o. Shri Sudayar Sai Sidar, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Bade Rampur, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
64 - Anandpal Minj, S/o. Shri Dhanviraj Minj, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Goverdhanpur, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
65 - Niraj Choudhary, S/o. Shri Banshidhar Choudhary, Aged About 47
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Jampali Pussour, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
66 - Madhav Singh, S/o. Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Sambalpuri, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
67 - Jagarnath Tiger, S/o. Shri Roopsai, Aged About 48 Years, Head
Master, Primary School, Nawapara, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
68 - Fool Singh Rathiya, S/o. Shri Lakched Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Primary School Sugargunda- 2, Sarangarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
10
69 - Rakesh Poddar, S/o. Shri Parmanand Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
Head Master, Naveen Prathamik Shala Dipapara Hatpali, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
70 - Shashikant Gupta, S/o. Shri Ramdutt Gupta, Aged About 45 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Bankheta, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
71 - Narayan Prasad Patel, S/o. Shri Sheetal Prasad Patel, Aged About 47
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Ghotla Bade, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
72 - Naresh Nayak, S/o. Shri Ghasiram Nayak, Aged About 41 Years,
Head Master, Primary School, Dhanaghar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
73 - Dilip Kumar Khakha, S/o. Shri Samuel Khakha, Aged About 43
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Semipali Dharamjaigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
74 - Jai Krishna Mehar, S/o. Shri Gourishankar Mehar, Aged About 53
Years, Head Master, Primary School, Dipapara Kandagarh Pussour,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
75 - Khageshwar Prasad Sahu, S/o. Shri Chamra Ram Sahu, Aged About
42 Years, Head Master, Primary School, Kalarmuda, Raigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
11
2 - The Director, Public Instruction, Directorate, Indirawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The District Education Officer, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners :Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate
For Respondents :Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
18.08.2026
1.The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the order dated
22.11.2019 by which it was ordered that the petitioners are not
entitled for two advance increment, as they have been appointed
after 16.06.1993, which is unsustainable and bad in law.
2.Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit
that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law, therefore, it
deserves to be set aside.
12
3.Mr. Sharad Mishra, 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
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 writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4.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.
5.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
13
State has denied the said benefit to the persons who were
appointed after 16.6.1993.”
6.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 Promotion Rules,
1973 have been amended on 16.6.1993 and earlier,
D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI were not the necessary qualifications
for appointment as Teachers/Assistant Teachers/
Lecturers. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on
27.1.1994 (Annexure P/2). In clause 6 of the said
Appointment Order, it has been categorically mentioned
that B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI were the necessary qualifications.
In order to benefit the highly qualified teachers, who had
obtained D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI at their own expenses, the State
has formulated a Policy vide Circular dated 6.2.2007 for
grant of two advance increments to them and after the
amendment, the said qualifications were made necessary
and prescribed as minimum qualification required for
appointment on the post of Teacher. The State
Government has not extended the benefit of two advance
increment in lieu of passing the B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI
Examination at their own expenses to those teachers who
have been appointed after the said amendment i.e.
16.6.1993 and accordingly, the Circular/order dated
1.12.2016 has been issued, whereby, the Circulars dated
6.2.2007 and 12.3.2007 were set-aside.
8.In the second round of litigation i.e. in a bunch of
Writ Appeals i.e. WA No.105/2014 and other connected
Appeals, preferred by the State, in para 9 & 10 of the
order dated 4.4.2014 (Annexure P/9), the said issue has
been examined and in para 10, it has been categorically
observed that the cut off date of appointment i.e. prior to
16.6.1993 mentioned in the first part of the Circular
14
dated 6.2.2007 appears to be quite justified. So there is a
rationality in the decision taken by the State Government
as after the amendment, the qualification of
B.Ed/D.Ed./BTI became necessary qualifications to get
appointment on the said posts, however, earlier, the same
were not necessary qualifications.
9.For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that
merely because after the order passed by this Court on
4.4.2014 in WA No 104/2014 and other connected
Appeals, respondents 5 & 6 have been awarded two
advance increments, the petitioner cannot claim negative
parity for grant of benefit which has been extended to
them. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article
14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot
be enforced in a negative manner. Further, it is trite law
that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative
terms.”
7.Thus, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition
against which the petitioner therein preferred writ appeal and the
Division Bench of this Court while affirming the order passed by
the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ appeal by recording
finding as under: -
“9.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires
that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition i.e. WPS No.2051 of 2005 vide order dated
25.04.2024, observing that The Recruitment Rules
namely Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III
Education Service (Non-Collegiate Services)
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 have been
amended on 16.6.1993 and earlier, D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI were
not the necessary qualifications for appointment as
Teachers/Assistant Teachers/Lecturers. Admittedly, the
writ petitioner was appointed on 27.1.1994. In clause 6
of the said Appointment Order, it has been categorically
15
mentioned that B.Ed./ D.Ed./BTI were the necessary
qualifications. In order to benefit the highly qualified
teachers, who had obtained D.Ed./ B.Ed/BTI at their own
expenses, the State has formulated a Policy vide Circular
dated 6.2.2007 for grant of two advance increments to
them and after the amendment, the said qualifications
were made necessary and prescribed as minimum
qualification required for appointment on the post of
Teacher. The State Government has not extended the
benefit of two advance increment in lieu of passing the
B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI Examination at their own expenses to
those teachers who have been appointed after the said
amendment i.e. 16.6.1993 and accordingly, the
Circular/order dated 1.12.2016 has been issued, whereby,
the Circulars dated 6.2.2007 and 12.3.2007 were set-
aside. Further, in the second round of litigation i.e. in a
bunch of Writ Appeals i.e. WA No.105/2014 and other
connected Appeals, preferred by the State, in para 9 & 10
of the order dated 4.4.2014, the said issue has been
examined and in para 10, it has been categorically
observed that the cut off date of appointment i.e. prior to
16.6.1993 mentioned in the first part of the Circular dated
6.2.2007 appears to be quite justified. So there is a
rationality in the decision taken by the State Government
as after the amendment, the qualification of B.Ed/
D.Ed./BTI became necessary qualifications to get
appointment on the said posts, however, earlier, the same
were not necessary qualifications. Learned Single Judge
further held that merely because after the order passed by
this Court on 4.4.2014 in WA No 104/2014 and other
connected Appeals, respondents 5 & 6 have been
awarded two advance increments, the writ petitioner
cannot claim negative parity for grant of benefit which
has been extended to them. The concept of equality as
envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a
positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative
manner. Further, it is trite law that right to equality under
Article 14 is not in negative terms and accordingly,
16
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner /
appellant herein.”
8.Against the dismissal of writ appeal, an SLP was preferred by
Neelam Dubey and the same has also been dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 2-7-2025 by holding as under: -
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence,
the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”
9.As such, this Court in Single Bench has clearly held that prior to
appointment in service on the post of Assistant Teacher, the persons
who were appointed after 16-6-1993 would not be entitled for the
benefit of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed.
Certificate on their own expenses. The said finding has been
affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal and
further by the Supreme Court in SLP.
10.This Court in WPS No.2051/2017, has also considered the order
dated 1-12-2016 which was also questioned by the petitioner therein
and thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed and writ appeal
against that order has also been dismissed which was affirmed in
SLP by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to
entertain the present writ petition in view of the decision passed by
this Court in writ petition as also in writ appeal and thereafter in
SLP by the Supreme Court.
17
11.As such, in view of the aforesaid finding of this Court and the
Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. I do
not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Ashok Judge
This authoritative Chhattisgarh High Court judgment on teacher increments, specifically in WPS No. 124 of 2020, stands as a significant ruling concerning the entitlement of advance increments for teachers after 1993 appointment. This detailed analysis, accessible through CaseOn, clarifies the eligibility criteria for acquiring two advance increments for B.Ed./D.Ed. certificates, a benefit often sought by educators. The court\'s decision, rendered on August 18, 2026, reinforces previous precedents, confirming the State\'s rational policy based on the amendment of recruitment rules.
\n\nThe petitioners, comprising 75 Head Masters from various primary schools in Sarangarh, Raigarh, and Dharamjaigarh districts of Chhattisgarh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 22, 2019. This order denied them two advance increments for obtaining B.Ed./D.Ed. certificates, primarily because they were appointed after June 16, 1993. They argued that this denial was unsustainable and legally flawed.
\n\nThe order from November 22, 2019, explicitly stated that teachers appointed after June 16, 1993, were not entitled to the two advance increments. This cut-off date is central to the dispute, as it aligns with the amendment of the relevant recruitment rules, making B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI qualifications mandatory.
\n\nThe legal foundation for this case rests upon the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973. A crucial amendment to these rules took effect on June 16, 1993. Prior to this date, B.Ed., D.Ed., or BTI qualifications were not mandatory for appointment as Teachers, Assistant Teachers, or Lecturers. However, post-amendment, these qualifications became necessary.
\n\nTo benefit highly qualified teachers who had obtained D.Ed./B.Ed./BTI at their own expense, the State formulated a policy vide Circular dated February 6, 2007. This policy allowed for the grant of two advance increments. However, the State Government specifically did not extend this benefit to teachers appointed after the June 16, 1993, amendment. Consequently, Circulars dated February 6, 2007, and March 12, 2007, were later set aside by an order dated December 1, 2016.
\n\nA significant precedent shaping this judgment is the case of Smt. Neelam Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No. 2051/2017). In this similar matter, decided on April 25, 2024, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that those appointed after June 16, 1993, were not entitled to the increments. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench in WA No. 501/2024 on August 9, 2024, and ultimately by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 24106/2025 on July 2, 2025. This chain of affirmations firmly established the legal position.
\n\nThe Single Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Hon\'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, thoroughly considered the arguments. The court noted that the issues raised in the current petition were identical to those addressed in the Neelam Dubey case. Since the ruling in Neelam Dubey\'s case had achieved finality through dismissal at all judicial levels, including the Supreme Court, it served as a binding precedent. The court emphasized that the finding that "persons appointed after 16-6-1993 would not be entitled for the benefit of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed. Certificate on their own expenses" had been definitively established.
\n\nThe court reiterated the rationality behind the cut-off date of June 16, 1993. Before this date, B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI qualifications were not prerequisites for appointment. The advance increments were intended as an incentive for those who acquired these qualifications when they were not mandatory. After the amendment, these qualifications became essential for the post of Teacher, making the special incentive redundant for new appointees. This distinction justifies the State Government\'s policy.
\n\nThe court also addressed the petitioners\' potential claim of negative parity, stemming from instances where others might have received the benefit despite similar appointments. Citing previous rulings (specifically para 9 & 10 of the order dated April 4, 2014, in WA No. 104/2014 and connected Appeals), the court underscored that the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept. It cannot be enforced to claim benefits that were irregularly granted to others, thereby reinforcing the principle that negative parity is not permissible.
\n\nFor legal professionals and students grappling with the intricacies of such rulings, CaseOn.in offers invaluable support. Their 2-minute audio briefs provide concise, expert analysis of complex judgments, including this Chhattisgarh High Court judgment on teacher increments, making it easier to quickly grasp the essence of the decision and its implications for advance increments for teachers after 1993 appointment.
\n\nIn light of the comprehensive analysis and the binding precedent set by the Neelam Dubey case, the Chhattisgarh High Court found no merit in the current writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs. The court definitively ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the two advance increments, affirming the order dated November 22, 2019.
\n\nThis judgment is an essential read for lawyers specializing in service law, government employment, and educational policy. It provides clarity on:
\nFor law students, it serves as an excellent case study on the application of constitutional principles in administrative law challenges and the importance of thorough legal research into judicial precedents.
\n\nAll information provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice regarding specific legal issues. This content is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
']
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....