s ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.tStNO. 3fc°'/\ /2011 PETITIONER ^l/-^ r\^fi^^ ^^^•••""' ^s^?'^ ^y^' . ^ <*"'!...•-" l>601 RESPONDENTS Krishna Kumar Soni S/o Sliri Shatrughan Lal Soni, <iged cibout 5'? years, Presently postccl ;)K Hccic]' Master Primary School Kocliikapo, Block MunReli, Di.stricl Bil;is|)iii C.G VERSUS 'l. State of C.G. through the SccrctaFv School Education Dcpartmcnt , ])1<S Bhawan Raipur, C.G. 2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilas]3ur C.(i. 3. The Joint Director Trcasiirv ;ind Pension, Bilaspur, District Bil.ispur C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF Ad APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OE MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDEB IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. a ~°%tf''X "csaisf&^ ^ ^ (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker^ il No. 36 PEniIONER Krishna Kumar Soni VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattlsaarh and others Shri Rakesh Pandey, counse) for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. for the State. A • K' »« -<•< Grievance of the petltioner in the prasent petition is that the petiti dated 01.: was appointed as deputy teacher vlde order .1973 cn a flxed pay scale of Rs. 100 and from RS. 150 and after probation; he was granted scate of Rs. 545-925. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the dat®of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with n.umber of decisions passed by thls Court and also the judgmerit rendered by the M.P. State Administrath/e Tnbunal, Others Vs. State of M.P. & Otheis} wherein it has been held that simitarty placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial 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 ^.sr.^s^. ^^ ^f. the ay scate from the date of -2- Tribunal to the effect are entitled for regular their initiai appointment. 4. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition ss disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in jts perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunai in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Qvil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95; the petitioner may be entitied to same relief accordingly. the State authorities to pass suitable of the facts. has not expressed any the authorlty concerned representation strictly in is made on the be at li accordance with of the case and to decide the Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge :n|