Omprakash Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
1 WP-11557-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11557 of 2024
OMPRAKASH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner through VC.
Shri Tarun Pagare - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) to call for the relevant records of the case;
(b) to command the respondents to grant the benefit of two
advance increments granted to the petitioner on account of his
B.T.I. from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f.
30.12.1995 and to refix the pay of the petitioner and post retiral
benefits of the petitioner and to release arrears thereof alongwith
interest @ 12% p.a., by a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other
appropriate writ, direction order;
(c) to allow this petition with costs;
(d) to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
in the fact and circumstance of the case to grant relief to the
petitioner;"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled
to the benefit of two advance increments on account of having acquired the
B.T.I. qualification at his own expense prior to entering Government service.
It is submitted that the Circular dated 21.09.1974 issued by the respondent
Department specifically provided for grant of two advance increments to a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
2 WP-11557-2024
person who acquired B.Ed./B.T.I. qualification at his own expense, either
before entering Government service or during service. The petitioner had
successfully completed the two-year B.T.I. course in the year 1994 and
obtained the requisite certificate on 30.12.1994, whereas he was appointed as
Assistant Teacher only thereafter on 26.12.1995 and was subsequently
placed in the regular pay scale with effect from 30.12.1996. Thus, his case
falls squarely within the ambit of the aforesaid Circular and he could not
have been denied the benefit merely because the qualification was acquired
prior to his appointment.
Learned counsel further submits that the controversy is no longer res
integra and stands settled by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of M.P. & Others v. Badrinarayan Acharya & Others , (1996) 10 SCC
271 and Smt. Asha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Others , Civil Appeal
No.3408/2008, decided on 07.05.2008. It is submitted that the same principle
has consistently been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in State
of M.P. & Anr. v. Smt. Neeta Verma , W.A. No.89/2009, decided on
12.08.2011, as well as in State of M.P. v. Smt. Nisharani Agrawal & Ors.
reported in 2005 (2) MPJR SN 18 and Single Bench of this Court
i n Taranjeet Kaur Chakrel v. State of M.P. & Ors. (WP
No.7537/2011) decided vide order dated 09.05.2011. In view of the aforesaid
binding and consistent judicial pronouncements, the petitioner, being
similarly situated to the employees who have already been extended the
benefit of two advance increments, is also entitled to identical treatment. The
subsequent Circular dated 24.12.1998, issued pursuant to the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
3 WP-11557-2024
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, also recognizes the entitlement of
teachers who had obtained B.T.I. qualification at their own expense to two
advance increments from the date of their initial appointment.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had been selected pursuant
to the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement of the year 1989 and
the requirement of B.Ed./B.T.I. qualification was introduced only
subsequently by amendment of the relevant Recruitment Rules in June,
1993. Therefore, the subsequent amendment dated 14.09.2011 could not
retrospectively operate to deprive the petitioner of the benefit available under
the Circular prevailing at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the
denial of two advance increments throughout the petitioner’s service caused
recurring financial prejudice and consequently resulted in reduction of his
retiral and pensionary benefits, particularly as he retired from service on
30.06.2023. The petitioner had also served a demand of justice notice dated
18.01.2024 seeking redressal of his legitimate claim, but the respondents
failed to grant the benefit or take any effective decision thereon. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to grant two
advance increments to the petitioner with effect from his initial appointment,
re-fix his pay accordingly and extend all consequential benefits, including re-
fixation of retiral and pensionary benefits and payment of consequential
arrears in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the State, opposing the petition, submits that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondents in
extending the benefit of two advance increments on account of his having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
4 WP-11557-2024
obtained B.T.I. qualification prior to entering service. It is submitted that
although the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.12.1995, he
had obtained the B.T.I. qualification on 30.12.1994, i.e., prior to his
appointment. However, mere acquisition of the qualification prior to entry
into service does not, by itself, confer any right to the claimed benefit, as the
eligibility for grant of advance increments is governed by the applicable
rules and circulars. The period of training prior to appointment cannot be
treated as part of the petitioner's service for the purpose of determining his
entitlement to advance increments.
It is further submitted that that the School Education Department,
Bhopal, by circular dated 14.09.2011, has clarified the eligibility for grant of
two advance increments and the petitioner does not fall within the prescribed
criteria. The petitioner was appointed on 26.12.1995 and obtained his B.T.I.
qualification on 30.12.1994, both dates being beyond the relevant cut-off
dates prescribed under the circular. Even the provision relating to employees
acquiring B.Ed./B.T.I./D.Ed. qualification at their own expense before
01.03.1999 does not assist the petitioner, as his qualification was obtained on
30.12.1994 and the benefit claimed is otherwise governed by the conditions
stipulated in the circular.
Learned counsel therefore submits that the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate any express order, rule or circular conferring upon him a right
to the claimed two advance increments. The authorities have duly examined
his claim and have rightly found it distinguishable from the case relied upon
by him. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit and the claim for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
5 WP-11557-2024
advance increments being misconceived and unsustainable, deserves to be
dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner,
who was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.12.1995 and had acquired the
B.T.I. qualification on 30.12.1994, is entitled to two advance increments on
the basis of the Circular dated 21.09.1974 and the judgments relied upon by
him.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner acquired
the B.T.I. qualification on 30.12.1994, i.e. prior to his appointment in
Government service. There is also no dispute that his appointment as
Assistant Teacher was made on 26.12.1995. Thus, the petitioner was
appointed subsequent to 16.06.1993. The effect of this date assumes
significance in view of the specific clarification subsequently issued by the
School Education Department vide Circular dated 14.09.2011. The relevant
portion of the Circular dated 14.09.2011, as relied upon by the respondents,
reads as under:
“3. 16.06.1993
दनांक के पहले िनयु ऐसे सम त उपरो िश क को
01.03.1999
जसने सेवा म रहते वयं के यय पर दनांक के पहले
हुए
( / / ) ,
बी.एड. बी.ट %.सी. ड %.एड. यो &यता अ ज(त क ) हो उनको पर %ा उ *ीण(
करने क ) दनांक से दो अि ,म वेतन वृ ./ क ) पा 0ता होगी। यह प3
16.06.1993
कया जाता है क दनांक के प 5ात िनयु कसी भी 7कार
/ / ,
के िश क को ज8हने बी.एड. बी.ट %.सी. ड %.एड. क ) पर %ा उ *ीण( क ) है
उ 8ह कसी भी थित म दो अि ,म वेतनवृ ./ क ) पा 0ता 7ा: नह %ं होगी।
4. / /
वयं के यय पर बी.एड. बी.ट %.सी. ड %.एड. करने का ता ;पय( यह होगा
, /
क िश क के <ारा अपने अ ज(त अवकाश अ /( वेतन
/
अवकाश असाधारण अवकाश आ द देय अवकाश का िनयमानुसार
/
उपभोग कर अंशकालीन थ प /ित या प 0ाचार के मा Aयम से
दूर
”
7िशण 7ा: कया गया हो।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
6 WP-11557-2024
A plain reading of the aforesaid clarification makes the position
abundantly clear. The benefit of two advance increments was preserved for
teachers appointed before 16.06.1993 who, while in service, acquired the
prescribed qualification at their own expense before 01.03.1999. At the same
time, the circular expressly clarifies that teachers appointed after 16.06.1993,
even if they subsequently acquired B.Ed./B.T.C./D.Ed. qualification, would
not be entitled to two advance increments. The circular further explains the
expression “at his own expense” by referring to acquisition of the
qualification through permissible leave and through part-time, distance or
correspondence mode.
In the present case, the petitioner admittedly came to be appointed on
26.12.1995, i.e. after the cut-off date of 16.06.1993. Consequently, he falls
within the category of teachers expressly excluded from the benefit of two
advance increments under the Circular dated 14.09.2011. The fact that the
petitioner had acquired the B.T.I. qualification on 30.12.1994, prior to his
appointment, does not take his case outside the express exclusion contained
in the said circular.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not
advance his case as none of the aforesaid judgments dealt with or considered
the Circular dated 14.09.2011, which specifically clarifies the entitlement of
teachers with reference to the cut-off date of 16.06.1993 and expressly
excludes teachers appointed thereafter from the benefit of two advance
increments.
The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the aforesaid judgments in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
7 WP-11557-2024
isolation while ignoring the subsequent clarification governing the category
to which he admittedly belongs. The principle of parity can be invoked only
where the factual and legal circumstances governing the two sets of
employees are identical. In the present case, the petitioner's appointment
itself took place after 16.06.1993, which is the decisive factor under the
Circular dated 14.09.2011. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with
those teachers whose cases were governed by the earlier policy or who fell
within the category protected by the judgments relied upon by him.
The contention that the petitioner had been selected pursuant to the
advertisement issued in the year 1989 also does not alter the position.
Selection pursuant to an earlier advertisement, by itself, cannot confer a
vested right to a particular pay benefit unless such right had accrued in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions or executive instructions.
The petitioner was admittedly appointed only on 26.12.1995. For the purpose
of determining his entitlement to advance increments, the governing
instructions applicable to his appointment and service have to be considered.
The Circular dated 14.09.2011, which specifically clarifies the position in
respect of teachers appointed after 16.06.1993, therefore cannot be ignored.
The fact that the petitioner had acquired the B.T.I. qualification before
entering service is also of no assistance. The circular itself makes a
distinction between teachers appointed before and after 16.06.1993 and,
therefore, acquisition of the qualification at one's own expense is not the sole
determining factor. The date of appointment is an equally material condition
for entitlement to the benefit. Since the petitioner was appointed after the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24377
8 WP-11557-2024
prescribed cut-off date, he is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed
to establish any enforceable legal right to claim two advance increments on
account of acquisition of B.T.I. qualification. The Circular dated 14.09.2011
specifically excludes teachers appointed after 16.06.1993 from the benefit of
two advance increments, and admittedly the petitioner was appointed on
26.12.1995. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner having been
rendered without consideration of the aforesaid circular, they do not govern
the petitioner's case so as to confer upon him the claimed benefit.
Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
18:27:52