Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deepak Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816




                                                             1                              WP-3673-2026
                             IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
                                                    ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
                                                   WRIT PETITION No. 3673 of 2026
                                              DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Ms.Manjula Mukati -Advocate for the petitioner through VC.

                                  Shri Ayushyaman Chodhary -GA for the respondents/State.

                                                                 ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs:

                                            (i)       यथ गण से करण से संबंिधत रकाड मंगवाया जावे;
                                            (ii)     यािचकाकता का   करण माननीय म. . उ च यायालय
                                      ख डपीठ इ दौर       ारा W.P. No. 19697/2022 (s) "Jagdish Chandra

Chawda vs. State of M.P. & ors." म पा रत आदे श दनां कत 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) के समान squarely covered होने से उ करण म दान कये गये लाभ यािचकाकता को दान कया जावे;

                                            (iii)    यािचकाकता का करण माननीय म. . उ च यायालय
                                      ख डपीठ इ दौर        ारा W.P. No.41153/2025(s) Suresh Chandra

Dubey vs. State of M.P. & ors." म पा रत आदे श दनां कत 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-8) के समान squarely covered होने से उ करण म दान कये गये लाभ यािचकाकता को दान कया जावे;



Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/24/2026
2:08:10 PM
           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816




                                                            2                               WP-3673-2026
                                           (iv)      यथ गण को िनदिशत कया जावे क वह यािचकाकता
                                     को वयं के यय पर ड .एड. पर       ा उ ीण करने क दनांक से दो अि म
                                     वा षक वेतनवृ     का लाभ जून 2000 से        दान करे , यािचकाकता के
                                     वेतन तथा सेवािनवृ     उपरांत लाभ को पुन: िनधारण कर, तथा उनका
                                     बकाया भुगतान 12% वा षक याज स हत कर।
                                           (v)    इस यािचका को यय स हत वीकार कया जाऐ।
                                           (vi)     करण क प र थितय को दे खते हुये अ य कोई यो य

सहायता जो माननीय यायालय यािचकाकता को दलवाना आव यक समझे दलवाई जावे।

2. On the last date of hearing, this Court directed the State to verify whether the petitioner's case is covered by the order passed in Suresh Chandra Dubey vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 41153/2025, dated 11.11.2025); however, the State has yet to verify this fact. Despite this, the petitioner insists on the issuance of a similar order. Considering the pleadings, this petition is hereby disposed of in light of the decision rendered in Suresh Chandra Dubey (supra), which reads as under:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the respondents to grant the benefits of two advance increments w.e.f June 1999 and refix the pay of the petitioner and post retiral benefits alongwith the arrears with interest on account of obtaining D.Ed diploma during the course of employment after seeking due permission from the department.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are noted from W.P No.19697/2022 (Jagdish Chandra Chawda vs. the State of M.P and Ors.)
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by an order dated 18.01.1984 on the consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 300/- per Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/24/2026 2:08:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816 3 WP-3673-2026 month and after completion of 2 years of service he was appointed and posted as Assistant Teacher in the then regular pay scale of Rs. 975-1650/- + admissible dearness allowance w.e.f. 9.1.1987, by an order dated 2.3.1988. The petitioner sought permission from the department for pursuing D.Ed. Diploma course which was accorded to him by order dated 3.12.1997, vide Sr. No. 27, and accordingly, the petitioner completed his 2 years D.Ed. Diploma course during the course of his employment, on his own cost, vide copies of his D.Ed. Marksheets. The petitioner submits that when he 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 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 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/24/2026 2:08:10 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816 4 WP-3673-2026

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 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, Deparment 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, the order dated 15/6/2018, 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 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 1999 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 1986 and was granted permission by the department for pursuing D.Ed diploma course on 3/12/1997 would be entitled for two advance increment 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 Goverment service or during Government service he/she would be entitled for two advance increments in running time scale of pay.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner had joined the services prior to 16/6/1993 and the department had granted him permission for diploma course in the year 1997. His services would not be governed by the recruitment Rules amended on 16/6/1993. The aforesaid amended Rules by which the qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed was made 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/24/2026 2:08:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816 5 WP-3673-2026 amendment in the Rules. Further Annexure,R-1 dated 15/6/2018 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, Annexure P-9 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 15/6/2018. The petitioner was appointed in year 1984 and he was granted permission by department for pursuing D.Ed diploma course in 1997. Hence, it is held that the petitioners would be entitled for two advance increments on account of obtaining D.Ed diploma from June 1999 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 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, this petition stands disposed of.

3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.41153/2025, which shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall submit a representation annexing a copy of the order passed in the case of Suresh Chandra Dubey (supra). After going through the said order, if the respondents find that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by said decision under the specific facts and circumstances, the benefits extended in that case shall also be extended to the present petitioner within 60 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the authority determines that such benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/24/2026 2:08:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7816 6 WP-3673-2026 the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order categorically stating the grounds for disentitlement and communicate the same to the petitioner within the same 60-day period.

4. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(JAI KUMAR PILLAI) JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/24/2026 2:08:10 PM