\ , g $3 Simgm Eimmm CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: / Bhoj Ram Sahu S/o Shri kartik Ram Sahu, aged about 6O years, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. Pri. School Sawani, Block Patan, Dist— Durg. (C.G.) (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1./’£he / State of Chhattisgarh, , through the Secretary, School T Education 7 1 t > "' Department, @U?....... *q Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) rgo»\“m\6 "m w ..\ “w" 2.(The o (a ’...‘..... 11 ‘¢a‘.¢-"‘ 9 Commissioner, Public Instructlons, Chhattlsgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3(/. The District Education Offlcer, District HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DEWAKER w.P.(s).No. 75971201 1 Shri S.K.Thomas, coun S61 for thc: petitioncr. Shn‘ Pravean Das, Dy‘ G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER. ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTXON OF INDEA ORDER [14.12.201 1) Grievance of thE petitioner in the present petition is that fhe petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100— 150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169600. 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 this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 6r. 56 Others Vs. State ofMJ’. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 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 of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers ale entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appoinnnent. 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 PETITIONER Bhoj Ram Sahu versus RESPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh 8r, Others &€ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 51.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their 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 onier dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. 41>: It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutihy 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. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge