® Stngle Btnch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2cf^- OF 2011 PETITIONER ^ ..••' ,ov\^'> -Mn.v'' ^.^y^ <;'' ^' '^•^ •L^r' ".y €^^' •^^ RESPONDENTS Shail Kumari Yadav Wife of Shri Lekhram Yadav, aged about 57 years, Working as an Upper Division Teacher, Model Middle School Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS ./'" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. The District Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). rf^" 3. The Block Education Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As given in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As given in the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE. The present petition is being made for grant of regular pay scale and arrears from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that the -;^ ^^J..^^.^_J-^^ ^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P.(SlNo.2017of2011 PETITIONER Shail Kumari Yadav. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A. Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (15/04/2011) Following oral order Prashant Kumar Mishra^J, of the Court was passed by Grievanceof the present pstitioner in ths present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs.100-150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, she was granted regular pay scate of Rs.169-300. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that she is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and her case is squarely covered with number of dscisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teacher are entitted for regular pay scale from the date of their inltial appointment. 3. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by .the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect thatthe Tribunal to -A the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date oftheir initial appointment. 4. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted tiberty to make a representation, if so achrised, in the !ight of the aforesaid judgment and flie circular dated 27/12/2008 and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03/01/1^5, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordance w'th law. ,_- —?r"uul ;a-