i a? “gmix BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR (c G ) wmsnlo ‘4§\\ i 0F201o /1. Smt. Pushpa iThakur, W/o Shri Jivan Lal Thlakur, aged about 51 years, Post — Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schodl Hirapur, Kota Raipur (C.G.) , i 2 Smt. Aruna Ghatge, (Before Marriage Aruna Pawar) W/o Shri Sambhaji Rao Ghatge, aged about 49 years, Assistant Teacher Bhatapara Bajrang Chouk Raipur ’(C.G.) Nand Kumari Pandey w/o smt Jayendra kumar Pandey 49 years Asistant Teacher Govt primary girls school Budhapara Raipur (C.G) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENT /1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (co) /2. Distric Education officer Raipur (C.G.) WRIT i PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT §.,,_ /KA / PETTIONERS ’ , Shri Somkant Ver, ma couns Grievance of the p¢tition6rs the msent petitn is that he petitioners were appointed as ssistt Teacher on a hxed pay cale of Rs. 12 for a iod o two years and fter completion of probation, they w granted rular pa scale of Rs. 00-6000. the petitioners is hat they ale entitled for regula pay sea with eect from the date of in a c s w numbr of disio pased. me fa ve Tri a u Contention of the counsel TINKEk DIWAKER 1 for the etitioners. Shi Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. the tate. 1n § io t Aan s s 00 p r f a e eg y 40 r t r l if mal appointment nd their e is squarely covered ith this Com and also the judgnt rendered by the M.P. te Administrati bunal; Jaba‘r i 0.. N. 2745/89 V. Sae of M.P. as Otrs similaly placed teachers are ent the date f their appointm t not disputed by both e parties that the maer was e u S x dismised by the pex Court uholding the cision of the Tribual to th eEect that the echers] Assistant Teachers are entitl for regular pay scale m the date of their initl appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for thememdsdmmw " [he eei Cour but the appeal as also takn p by the tate to the Ape s A p de n e Ta ed fm ia dhukant Yad as 56 Others erein has been eid that ie for regular pay scale from lpu n A o { . s tt he) w r i‘ t. 3.3.: HONBLE JU$TICE MR. PR] 13422010: e i p i r S e ecns s h it h td o initial e: 1 i is ti tt t w XLHC-2 , / 2 petitioners are granted liberty to 1 nake airepresentation, if so , § advised, in The light of the afoxesaid judgment and the circglar dated 27.7.09 (Annexure P/6) a respondent is directed to consider ad in turn, the concerned their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioners stand on the same footing as per order passed by the in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and s1 Supreme Court in Special Leave Pt order dated 3.1.1995, the petition relief accordingly. It is expected nom the state order after due scrutiny of the facts. It. is made clear that this C opinion. on merits of the case a would be at liberty to decide th accordance with law. ( State Administrate Tribunal ibsequently connrmed by the :tition (Civil) No. 6892/ 93 by ers may be entitled to same authorities to pass suitable burt has not expressed any nd the authority concerned re representau‘on strictly in fx i' Sd/- i 'Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge r n’/,4 Xffjr're— {1% éteih £1