1 2025:CGHC:50745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 374 of 2023 Dr. Shobha Shrivastava D/o Shri Shiv Shrivastava Aged About 52 Years Post Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beeja-Bhata, Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Govt. Of C.G. Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhavan, 1st Floor, New Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 10.10.2025 1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order respondent No. 2 to grant two advance increments to the petitioner from the date of passing Ph.D. examination on own expense while in service. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Circulars of the State Government dated 08.05.1973 and 18.11.1992, the petitioner is entitled for two advance increments as the petitioner has passed Ph.D. examination on own expenses while in service and in the said circulars, no procedure has been prescribed or obtaining permission and neither any prescribe authority has been mentioned in the said circulars and in this regard she was submitted an application to respondent No. 2 through District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, who has forwarded the same with recommendation, but respondent No. 2 has rejected the said application of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments from the date of passing Ph.D. examination on the technical ground that the petitioner has obtained permission from Principal of School, she should have obtained permission from respondent No. 2. Hence this petition filed by the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State has made an objection that the approval was not taken from the competent authority, but the fact remains that the petitioner has obtained Ph.D. degree, for which, two advance increments are required to be given as per policy of the State Government. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Given the said facts, let respondent No. 3 take an appropriate decision so far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No. 3 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. 6. Respondent No.3 is expected to take a decision on the basis of 3 prevalent rules and regulations so far as grant of advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. is concerned. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE AMIT PATEL