C^Z^7f\ i' & IN THE HON'BU; mGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASFUR WRITFETmON (S) No.603&'/2011 PETmONERS 5T < ^ Harihar Das Manikpuri S/o Manik Das Manikpuri aged about 51 Years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Middle School Kalmitar, Block Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Bahoran Lal Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu aged about 51 Years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Higher Secondary Sehool Chapora (Middle Depat.) Block - Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: VERSUS ~^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury.accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur *' (C.G.) 5. The Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Chapora Block - Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRTT UNDER ARTICU;226 OF TEffl CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA 1. PAKnCULARS OF THE FETmONER: ^'"^3"^ "^ ^} HIGH COURT OF CHHArTESQARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOK'BLB MR. JUSTECB PRITIMKBR DIWAKER W.P.1S1.KO. 6095/2011 PETITIONERS Harihar Das Maiukpur & versus State ofC.G. & Otbers Shri Ashwaui ShuJda, counsel for the oetitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy.G.A. for theState. WRIT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF mPIA ORDBR (14.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the petitioners were appoiated as Deputy Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad afiter completion of probation, they were granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is that fhey are entitled for regular pay scale witb efFect i&oin the date of initial appoiatnient aad fheir case is squarely coveicd with number of decisions passed by fhis Court and also fhe judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrati.ve Tnbunal, Jabalpur ia OuA. JVo. 2745/89 (Saadhuktwt Yacbi & 56 Others Vs. Stedx of M.P. & Others) where ia it has been held fbat suiularly placed teacheis are entitted for regular pay scale fiioia ftie date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties that tfae siatter was taken yp by the State to the Apex Court but the appealwas also disiafased by the Apex Court upholdiiig fhe decision of ffae Tribuual to the effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from. the date oftheir initial appointuient. In view of the above subinission made by the counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of in fhe sanie tenns i.e. fhe 8^¥ ^ petitioners are granted liberty to niake a representation, ifso advised, ia. the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2 ) and ia. tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits and in its perspcctive. If the petitioner sta&ds on the same footing as per order passed by fhe State Adinitiistrati.ve. Tnbunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confinned by the Supreine Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioaer niay be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected Sxvsa. tfae State aufhoritics to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facte. It is inade clear that fhis court has not expressed aay opinion on tfae raerits of fhe case aad fhe authorily concenied would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly tn accordance with ]aw. Sd/- PritiRker - .Judge