$31Mg‘m Wmaww " CD ‘a¢)/ 0g 5” IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. Isy No. éIQB 12011 PETITIONER ( Dashrath Prasad Rathor S/o Shri 9 ..........:::.:. .. (TR. Rather, aged about 53 years, ‘9 ‘ Occupation Service, Posted as Head SF Master Primary School Chhaprapara, _ Block Lormi, District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS /1. State of C.G. through the Secretary School Education Department , DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. 2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ( 3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATU RE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONIORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. CONSTITUTION OF éW pg/ W HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.[S!.N0. 62931201 1 Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shn‘ A?V. Shridhar, P.L. for the State. “’RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2011) Gn'evance of the petitioner in the pmsent petiu'on is that the peiitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Exed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 69-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with eEect from the date of mmal appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions 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 as 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. 8a Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are enu'tled for regular pay scale h~om the date of their mmal appointment. It is not disputed by both the paru‘es 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 of the Tribunal to the eh‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hum the date of their initial appointment. 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 liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in 1 PETITIONER Dashlath Prasad versus RESPONDENTS g; the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his 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 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected. from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due sdrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. T i Sci/- ‘ Pritinker Diwaker t Judge h. _