A) ,/r ^ ^ SIN6LE BEMCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (Sl No. ^ ?$ /2Q11 PETITIONER Neel Prasad Patanwar S/o Shri Babulal about 52 Years occupation Upper Division Teacher Govt. Middle School Boida, Block Pali Distt. Korba (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: :^^- ^^c^^ ^^.-•""""^' ^' ''^•>-.. ^"l3"^ q^, ^/^^T . ^ 1 ' . fa?rr^[^^] i .Ij ^..:/ . ^ ^// r -^^ ^s^\^y VERSUS 1 Stafe of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, . D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur'- Pistrict Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTTONOF INDIA $ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS©AI»IAT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICE PRITIHKBR DIWAKER PBTITIONBR W.P.fSl.HO. 8635/2011 Neel Praaad Patanwar versus RBSPOlffDBNTS State ofC.G. & Ofliers Shri Ajay Kximar Badk, counsel for fhe petitioMer. Shn Praveen Das, Dy. G,A. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 22®OP THE CONSTITimON OF INDIA ORDBR (22.09.2011) Grievance of fhe petitlaner in (he prcsent petition is fhat the petitioner was initiaUy appomted on a fixed pay scsde of Rs, 150 aod after coxapletion ofprobation, he w^ graiited regiilar pay scale. Contention offhe counsel for (he petittoner is that he is entteled for regular pay scale wifh effect fix)m fhe date of mitial appomtraent aad his case is sqi^rely covered wifh nmiiber of decfeions passed by fhis Court and also fhe Judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Admjnistrative Tribuaal, Jabalpur ia 0*A. No. 274S/B9 (SSaOhukeisiS: Yadu <& 56 Otfeers Vs. Stetc ofM.P* & Othcra^where m it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entifled for reg^lar pay scale from fhe date of fheir mitial appoiatmeiit, It is not disputed by botii the pmltes tifcat the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was al^o dismiss^ by fhe Apex Court iipholdmg tte decision oftihe Tribiinal to tfae efifect that the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froin tihie date of fheir irdtial appoiiitxnent, In view of the above submissioa made by fhe couasel for llie pardes, fhe petitfon is disposed of in fhe saiae terms i.e. fhe petitioner is granted Uberty to raake a represeiitation, if so advteed, ia fhe Mgbt of the aforesaid judgment aad the circular dat^l 5.1.2011 ^< (Annexure P/2) and m tum, fhe coiieenied respoadent is directed to consider tibieir case on its own xaerits aad ici its perspectwe. If fhe petitioner stands on the same footiag as per onier pe^sed by the Stete Admioisfcrative Tdbunal io. Madhukant Yadu (sMpra) aiid subsequentiy confinaed by ffae Supreme Court in Spectel Leave Petition (Givil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tbe petttioner inay be enttflc^l to saiue reliefaccorduigly, It is expected fcorn ffae State aufhoritle^ to pasa suitable order after due scrutmy offhe facts. It is made clear that this court has aot expressed any opmion on fhe merits of the case and tiie authority concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation starictiy ia accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge