^ C^ ^r^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET8TSON (S) N0. "^W OF 2011 PETITIONERSS 2\' <^' ..••'".^vr'< ^^.••"" %'""' ^' .^y c^'^y >%^x RESPONDENTS 1) Yuvraj Kushwaha, son of Late Diteshwar Ram Kushwaha, aged abouf 51 years, Working on the post of Upper Divisional Teacher, Government Middle School Wadsara, Block- Bhaiyathan, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 2) Amar Singh Netam, son of Late Mutur Ram, aged about 49 years; working on the post of Headmaster, Government Middle School Sanwaranwa, Block-Bhaiyathan, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 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, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Block Bhaiyathan, (Chhattisgarh) Education District- OfRcer, Surguja IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFiNDIA HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HQW^BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR W.P.JSl.NO. 3890/2Pl 1 PBTITIOMBRS RBSPONDENTs wrsus Yuvraj Kushwaha Anofber State of Chhattisgarh & Othcrs & Shri, V.K<Pan.dey, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the Slate. WRIT PBTITIOM UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB COWS'NTIJTION QFmmA ORDER PO.07.2011? Grievaiice of the petitioners irx the presesit petitio.n is fiiat the petitioners were appointed as Assistaat Teachers on a jBxed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aiid aftCT completioai of probatioii, they were graiited regularpay scale ofRs, 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for fhe petitioners is that fhey are entitled for regular pay scale witfa efiect from tiie date of iaiti^d appoiatment and fheir case is squarely covered witli iiamber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A* N^ 274S/89 ^ euihitk€tnt Taftu Ss S6 Ofthers Vs. •Steeite of M.P. 8s Others) where in. it has beeii held ttiat simil.axly placed teacherB are entitil.ed for regular pay scale froBi fhe date of fheir ioitial appoiatsixent, It is xiot disputed by bofh fhe parties that fhe niatter was taken up by tlie State to the Apex Ctourt but the appealwas aiao disimssed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision offhe Tribunal to the effect fhat the TeacIiers/Assistaiit Teachers arc entitled for regular pay scale jBx>m fhe date oftheir mitial appointment; In view of fhe above subsnissiou niade by fhe counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms ie. tfae ^' ./^^^ g -f^ { ^% -j 'y'^-^^^ ^^^^^ petitioners are graiited Uberty to make a ropresesatation, ifso advised^ ia fhe light offhe aforesaid judgment aod the circular dated 27.12»08 and ia tura, fhe concemed respondent ia directed to conaider their case on its own iiierite aad in. its perspective. If fhe petitioBera staiid on fhe same footfcag as per order passed by fhe State AdmisiistraMve Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) azid subseqiienfly conJSrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03»01,95y the petitioners inay be eBtitled to same reUef accordiagly, It is expected from fhe Stale aufhorities to pass siritable order after due scrutiay of fhe facts. It is sxiade clear that this court has not expres^ed any opiaion on fbe merits of fhe case aod tihie authority conceraed woiild be at Mberty to decide the representation strictly ia accordanoe witfa law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge