Teachers are not entitled to two advance increments for self-funded B.Ed./D.Ed./B.T.I. qualifications.

The petitioners, serving as Head Masters/teachers in government primary schools, challenged the order dated 7 March 2020 denying them the benefit of two advance increments allegedly claimed on acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed./B.T.I. qualifications at their own expense.

They also questioned the proposed or apprehended recovery of amounts previously paid towards those increments.

The petitioners relied upon the decision in Dinesh Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. 2382 of 2020, in which the entitlement to two advance increments had been rejected, while recovery of amounts already paid had reportedly been quashed.

The State conceded that the entitlement issue was covered by the said precedent but contended that the recovery challenge was premature because no recovery order had yet been passed against the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to two advance increments on acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed./B.T.I. qualifications at their own expense?

Whether the petitioners could challenge recovery of the amounts paid towards such increments when no recovery order had been passed against them?

The Court applied the principle laid down in Dinesh Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. 2382 of 2020, which followed Neelam Dubey and held that employees acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed./B.T.I. qualifications at their own expense were not entitled to two advance increments.

The Court further applied the settled procedural principle that a writ petition concerning recovery is premature in the absence of an actual recovery order or a subsisting cause of action; the employee may seek judicial intervention when such an order is subsequently passed.

The Court found that the claim for two advance increments was directly governed by Dinesh Kumar Verma, wherein the entitlement had already been rejected on the basis of Neelam Dubey.

Since the petitioners’ claim arose from the same circumstance—acquisition of the relevant qualifications at their own expense—the Court declined to interfere with the denial of increments.

As to recovery, the Court accepted the State’s submission that no recovery order had been passed against the petitioners.

In the absence of an operative recovery order, there was no present cause of action requiring adjudication; therefore, the petitioners were granted liberty to challenge any recovery order if and when it was issued.

The challenge to recovery was held to be premature because no recovery order had been passed.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court if a recovery order was subsequently issued.