i^- <^^-6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. r^o ^^ OF 2010. PETITIONERS s<- ^ .'••l? :1. Goutam Singh Dhruw, aged about 54 years, Son of Shri Manjan Singh Dhruw, Head Master, Govt. Priraary School Dhodade, Block Durgukondal, District Kanker (C. G.) 2. Sita Ram Baghel, aged about 58 years, Son of Shri Bhagha Ram Baghel, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Kopakatel, Block Durgukondal, Disfrict Kanker (C. G.) ^m^ ^ ^ '^ Dukhu Ram Kotparia, aged 'about 54 years, Son of Shri Nohar Singh Kotparia, Head Master, Govt. Higher Secondary School Damkasa, Block Durgukondal, District Kanker (C. G.) Sewa lal Chiram, aged about 53 years, Son of Shri Barsan Ram. Chiram., Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Durgukondal, Block Durgukondal, District Kanker (C. G.) ^,...^l^..,.^^^^s^i »»^aei-SKS^s,,sS^^?ws ..Bcaasisia, XI-HC-22 SII^T^H 'i^Rsign aitiw^Hfttf ~TST .<ii<(ic]q, aTil^'is. fixnioy 3TF^?T 'Vf^, __...y;;f':...^) ^'i^^^ i 'fm^f•^VSK----------—-^ 200 fq^sr' •OT^TTOiro^te SB : HOK'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITd 03.12.2010 '^N?f!itT!wwff •?-fs^-riSR^R ^i'STPOT 3)1^1 KBROIWAKER. Shri Somkant Verma, counsel|for the petitioners, Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the|8tate. Grievance of the petitioners iifi the present petition is that the petitioners were appointed as Assistjmt Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year ajnd after oompletion of probation, they were granted regular pay scaie i(if Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel fo entitled for regular pay scale witi] h the petitioners is that they are effect from the date of initial appointment and their case is scjuarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and ^lso thejudgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunali Jabalpur in OJL No. 274S/89 (Madfaukant Yadu & S6 Others Vs^ State of M.P. S> Otherg) wherein it has been beld that sirrularly plac^d teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initi^l appointment. It is not disputed by both th^ parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court (sut the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the d^cision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teac^iers are entitled for regutar pay scale from the date of their initial ajipointment. In view of the above submi^sion made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposedi of in the same terms i.e. the petitioners are granted Uberty to rcjake a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid jijidgment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/6) and in|tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their casel on its own merits and in its SS i^i-r] ,w*>M»gBy(K>flMltUt *UiA.»l*»»lJBJWN/LM, ;:'q^ tl-HC-22 '••..'.•-'^a^i @ "•^Jf 7E? -i|l*tlcl<'), ^Tfl'M'lli. fawi'My 37lip?T XS^K ^.•.erC^.),,.e^-'T«a?>4 VI. 200 tllHCO Shliqi fee^T' an^rqii h-u* anlsi st)^lct> '^T??T 3Tf^5I TOITWHf?? perspective. If the petitioners stand passed by the State Administrate (supra) and subsequently confirmed Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 petitioners may be entitled to same re It is expected froin the state a after due scrutiny of the facts. dn the same footing as per order ITribunal in Madhukant Yadu l|>y the Supreme Court in Special |by order dated 3.1.1995, the lief accordingly. tUthorities to pass suitable order It is made clear that this Coui on merits of the case and the authorjty to decide the representation strictly ii ct3t'liF<li4irf iffi^f ^ t^T^' ^r^x i? 3lf:(CT SII^T t has not expressed any opinion conoemed would be at hberty accordance with law. Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge ! "it^ 'S'R-r 1'H