c^ ^^-^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ?,%%'& OF 2011 PETITIONERSS ^- rA.^^ ?-^^A\'"" •y\ r^* f>-'" ^ ^€ ^>"" ^ ^^ ^ ^ //1) Deep Kumar Choubey, son of Late Shiv Prasad Choubey, aged about 51 years, Working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School, Tendua, Block-Baikunthpur, District-Korea (Chhattisgarh) 2) Satyanarayan Mishra, son of Late Bala Prasad Mishra, aged about 52 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School Baskar, Block-Bhaiyathan, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ^3) Yugeshwar Prasad Gupta, son of Shri Sanwaliya Prasad Gupta, aged about 53 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School Naya Karkoli, Block- Bhaiyathan, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 4) Ganga Ram Yadav, son of Late Ram Prasad Yadav, aged about 50 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School Dharampur, Block-Bhaiyathan, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ^5) Laxman Prasad Kushwaha, son of Late Jhurai Ram Kushwaha, aged about 58 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School Masira, Block-Bhaiyathan, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 6) Ravishankar Rajwade, son of Late Prem Lal Rajwade, aged about 51 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School, Phoolpur, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS °^y ^ RESPONDENTS : ^1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.). / 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District- Korea (Chhattisgarh) ^4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA J HIOH COURT OP CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB PRI'nNKBR CTWAKBR 1 ;! W.P.ISl.NO. 3888/2011 PETITIONBRS RB8PONDBNTS vermxs Deep Kumar Cfaoubey & Ofhers State ofChhattisgarh & Others Shri V.K.Paadey, coiuisel for thc petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Smgh TSiakxir, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT^BTniON UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDBR (20.07.2011) Grievaace of the petitioners m tlie present petition is that the petitioners were appoiated aa Assistaat Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after completioa of probation, they were granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the coiuisel for the petitioners is fhat they are entitled for regular-pay scale wifh effect &oin fhe date of mitial appointDient and fheir case is squarely covercd with iiiimber of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also the jiidgment rendered by tfae M.P, State Admiaistorative Tribunal, Jabalpur m 0»A<i JW&^ 274S/89 (MadhUkaivt Yadu. & S6 Others Vs. State ofM.P. Ss Other3) where ia it haa been held that siimlaxly placed teachers arc entitled for regular pay scale from fhe date of fheir mitial appoiatomient. It is not disputed by both fhe parties fhat the ixiatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeai was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiiig fhe decisioii ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are eiititled for regiilar pay scale firom fhe date oftheir iaitial appomtoaient. In view of fhe above subinission inade by the co^insel for tihie parties, the petition is dfeposed of ia fhe same terms i,e, the i,^» %^!as€i/ ^^^p^'" petittonei^s are granted liberty to make a representatioay tf so advised^ m tibie Ught offhe aforesaid judgment aad fhe circulardated 27.12.03 aad ia tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own merits and m its perspective» Iffhie petitloBera staad on the saxne footing as per order passed by the State Admmistrative Tribxinal m Madhukant Yadu (supral aad subaequeBtJy conjSrmed by the Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03,01,95, fhe petitioners may be entifled to same reMef accordmgly. It is expected firom fhe State aufhorities to pass siiitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is made clear fhat this court has not expressed any opimon on tiie nierits of fhe case aad the aufhority concemed would be at liberty to decide tlie rcpresentation stricfly m accordaiice wifti law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge