SINGLE BENCH THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. (s) No. M /2o11 ‘ ONER Panchmm Pork, Aged abouf 57 years, S/o Shri Chainsingh Por’re, Lecfur‘er‘, Governmenf Higher Secondary School Lakhr‘am, Block Bilha, Disfric‘r-Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS NDENTS : STaTe of Chha'rfisgar'h Through Secrefar'y, School Educa’rion Department D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (6.6.) The Dir'ec’ror‘ Public Insfr‘uc’rions Raipur (C.G.) Distric‘r Education Officer, Bilaspur, Dis'rric’r-Bilaspur (6.6.) Block Educa‘l‘ion Officer Bilha, DisTricl— Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (6.6.) 6/ The Principle, Government Higher Secondary School Lakhram, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) IN PETITI RESPO WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PARTICULAR$ OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in fhe cause “rifle. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As men‘l‘ioned in The cause Ti1'le. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THIS PETITION IS MADE. r ‘Lyguégwunwin ~ ' . - .0.“u¢_I Shn' KSPawar, counsel for me petitioner. Shli Shashank Thakur, RL. for tha State. wm'r PETITIoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 9F THE cowsTITu’r-mra ‘ a? mum ORDER 121.11.2011) Griévance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the yetitioner was appointed in the year 1975 aS Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a. pen‘od of one year and thereafter in the year 1976 on a’fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of one year. regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by After completion of probation, in the year 1977, he was granted, this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative. Tribunal, Jabalpur in (LA. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. 85 others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. lt 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 of the Tribu, a1 to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay / / ‘ scale fromthe date of their initial appointment. hi View of the above submission made by the counsel for the palties,- the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted libexty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in tum; 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 connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. €892,193 by order dated 03.0195, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny 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. I// Sdl— a Pritinker Diwaltar Judge