b‘i Wag/RWW Y w *t::?i’ o 4h . L¢ wt @O) Single Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) Na§9g 0f 2011 / PETITIONER: Ankalu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Suk Lal Sahu, aged about 58 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Pri. School, Borsi, Block Durg, Dist— Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1&f‘he State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Ra1pur (C G ) 3. The D1str1ct Educatlon Ofticer Dlstrlct Durg, (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR g”:M HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRI’I‘INKER DIWAKER W.P.QS§.NO. 7598!201 1 Shn‘ S.K.Thomas, counsel for the petitioner. Shn‘ Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs’ 100- 150 and after completion of probationa he was gianted 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 appoinmlent 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, Jabaipur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. state afMJ’. & 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 are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment 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 Ankalu Ram Sahu versus RESPONDEN’E‘S State of Cmmt‘dsgarh Others @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Annsxure P/ 1) and in turn, the concenled respondent is dilected 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 order dated 08.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitabie order after due scrlftiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the men'ts of the case and the authority concerned would be at. liberty to decide the representation strictly in accord ance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge