^iiigie.Bencjr C ^ ^, [6 o IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^ OF 2011. PETITIONER <'..^Al. v^'^ IX^\-:°'' ^\l^ ^\ 'o^" ^^'"" €^€x ^ ...••'' RESPONDENTS : ^ Latkhor Ram Dhruw, S/o. late Shri Relu Singh Dhruw, aged about 6 lyears, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Tendubhatha, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) , 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ~T CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR BB : HON?BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DEWAKER W.PJSI._??0,6958/201_1 PSTITIONBR RBSPONDENTs versus Latkhor RaBi Dhruv State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others Shri Sonikant Venaa, couusel for the petitiojier. ShriN.Naha Roy, P.L. for ttie State. WmT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (24.11.2011) Gxievance of fhe petitioner ia flie present petition is fhat tlie petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher 011 a fbced pay scale of Rs. 100 aad after conipletion of probatiou, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300, Contention of tlie counsel for fhe petitioxier is tliat he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect froia the date of iaitial appoiatoieut aiid his case is squarely covered wifh number of decisions passed by fhis Coiirt and also the judgixient rendered by the M.P. State Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. JVo. 274S/89 ^Scidhukartt Ya&u &S6 Others V§.State es/M.P. Ss Ofehers/where in it has been held that simUarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni tihe date of thieir initial appoiatment. It is not disputed by both tlie parties tliat the matter was takeii up by flie State to the Apex Coiirt but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Coiirt upholdiag th.e decision ofthe Tribunal to the elfect fhat the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitied for reg-ular pay scale froni fhe date of tiieir io.itial appointinent. In view of fhe above subinission raade by the counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia fh.e same texras i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to raake a representation, ifso advised, iri /^'\ llsSAl \sy ^ the Hght of fhe aforesaid judgment and fh.e circular dated 5.1,2011 (Annexure P/5) and ia tum., tjh.e concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own xnerits aad ia its perspective. If tiie petitioner stands on the same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Adniiaistrative Tribunal in. Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequentiy confiraied by the Supreuie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entiUed to saaie relief accordingly, It is expected from tbe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitmy of fhe facts. It is inade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed axiy opinion on fhe inerits of tiie case aiid fhe authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation sbdctiy iu accordance witli law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge