E) MQKIQLé’: m f $ .\ E§§;:§‘1§£5~§ mw‘" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) w.P. (s) No. WW /2o11 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PETITIONER : 53‘ Firoza Khan, Aged abou’r 61 years, W/o Shri Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Upper Division Teacher, Dr'.Bhimrao Ambedkar‘ ‘ Middle i School, Bilha, DisiricT—Biiaspur (6.6.) VERSUS REsPONoENTs : 1/ siaie of Chhawsgarh Through Secrefar‘y, School Education Deparfmenf D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (6.6.) The Director Public Insfructions Raipur (6.6.) Districf Education Officer, Bilaspur, Disiricf—Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Bilha, Disi'ricf— Bilaspur (66.) 5. l Joint DirecTor, Treasury, Accounf Pension, Bilaspur, (C15,) PETITIONER Smt. F‘iroza Khan VGNIIS RESPONDENT State of C.G. & Others S Stu-i K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. } Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRITW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.09.201 1) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the‘ petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Med pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after compleu'on of probation, she was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contemion of the counsel for the petiu'oner is that she is entitled for regular pay scale with effect n‘om the date of initial appointment and her case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court md also the judgment rendend‘by the MP. State Administrative Tn‘bunal, Jabalpur in on; No. 2745/89 madhukaut Yadu & 56 Others Vs. state of MLP. & » Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hum the date of their initial appointment. lt 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 1 by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eh‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hem the date of their initial appoinunent. In View of the above submission we by the counsel for the parties, the peu'tion is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the p petitioner is granted liberty to‘makc a mpresentau'on, if so adviscd, in the light of the afomsaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) 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 fooh'ng as per order passed by the State Adminisu‘ative Tribunal in Maihukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Peiin'on (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be enn'tled to same relief accordingly. It is expected nom the State authoriues to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opm'ion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the mpresentation strictly in accordance with law. sail. Pritinker Diwaker Judge