^ Se??^ c . <r • \o IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) N0. ^^ /2011 PETTTEONER ,.v^^"./- ^2\^^^ Y\\^-'>'" fS^"' .«»•"' 9<^ RESPONbENTS 1. ^' ^4. / ^ Rikhiram Nishad, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Shri Bhailal Nishad, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School Karehapara, Ratanpur, Block Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur. (C.G.) The Principle, ^overnment Middle School Karehapara Ratanpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.6.) \AA^— WRIT PETTTTON UNbER ARTTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUION OF INblA HIOH COURT OF CHHATTEBOARH AT BILASPUR BB : HOH'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRIT£HKBRDIWAKER PSTIT!ONBR RBSPONDBHTs W.P.fSS.NO. '7351^2011 Riktiiraoi Nishad versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner, ShziPraveen Das, Dy.G.A. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICL®226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF SNDIA ORDER (05.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petitiou is that the petitioner was appoiiited as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 200 for tevo yeai's aud after completion of probation, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs, 169-30Q. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entifled for regular pay scale wifh effect froin fhe date of iaitial appomtinent aiid his case is squarely covered witli nuniber ofdecisions passed by fhis Court aad also the judgnxent rendered by the M.P. State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpiu: ia. O.A. No. 2745/89 ^Sctidhukcint Yes&u & 56 Otfeers Pte» State ^fX^ & Ofhers^ whe.re ia it has been held tiiat similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scaie from the date of tiieir mitial appoiatm.ent. It is not disputed by both the pai'ties tliat fhe niatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court zipholdmg the decisiou of the Tribunal to fhe effect tltat the Teachers/Assistaat Tea.chers are entitled for regiilar pay scale froni the date of their iaitial apponitoaient, In view of the above subniission made by tlie coiinsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of io. the same tercis i,e. tlie petitioner is graxited Uberty to xaalce a representation, tf so advised, in fhe light of the aforesaid judgnient aad fhe circular dated 5,1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) aiid iti tum, the concenied respondent is directed to cousider fheir case cn its own nierits aiid ia its perspective. If tlie petitiouer stands on flie saoie footiLo.g as per order passed by Ae State Admiaistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aiid subseqiiently coufiiixied by the Suprersie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner xnay be entiUed to saine reMef accordmgly. It is expected froiu tiie State auth-orities to pass suitable order aft.er due scnitiny ofth-e facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opiiiion on tfie inerits of th.e case an.d tlie aixtliority concenied would be at Hberty to decide th-e representation stdctly m accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge