IN THE HIGH COUFTT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No7:?^0f2011 PETITIONER: Bhagwat Prasad Panthak S/o Shri Faguwa Ram Panthak, aged about 57 years, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School Garadih, Block Patan, Dist- Durg.(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) .^y: .C..-:Y>" ..<^ Cf^y ,.-:"S/V>' 2. The Commissioner, Public K^ ^!s'^:ii'/-<> ^y / Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR ^r SB : HON?BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER W.P.IS1.NO. 7733/2011 PETITIOISBR Versus Bhagwat Prasad Pajithak State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri S.K.Thomas, counsel tbr the petitioner. Shri Chaiidresh SIuivas'tava, P.L, for tlie State. WRIT PETITION ARTICLE 226 OP THE. CONSTITUTION OF IHDIA ORDER 116.12.2011] Grievance of the petitioner iii the preseut petition is tliat the petitiouer was appoiated as Assistant Teacher (Traiaee) 011 a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after completion ofprobatiou, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300, Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is eutitled for regular pay scale witii effect from the date /ofiaitial appoiiitment aad his case is squarely covered wifh. niiaiber ofdecisions passed by tliis Court aod also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Adm.iaistra.tive Tribunal, Jabalpiir iii 0»A»N^ 274S/89 (M'adhukant Ycsdu & 56 Others l^s. State .^fM<Po & CMfeersj where m it has been held tliat sieiilarly placed teachers are eutiUed for regulai' pay scale froni ttie date of their mitial appoiritaient. It is not disputed by botli the parties that the inatter was takeu up by tiie State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdnig the decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect that tlie Teachers/Assistant Teachers ai'e entitled for regulai' pay scale frora the date of then' iaitial appointaient. In view of tiie above subinission uiade by the counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of io. fh.e sasxie terms i.e. the petitioner is graiited Uberty to aiake a representation, if so advised, in y?:^ l^^-w€"^<. f\ ^^^s^. ^. --s^^—^^ ^ w^ .^ tlie light of the aforesaid judgXD-ent aad the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) aad ia turu, the conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own nierits aiid in its perspective. If the petitioner staiids on tlie saxae footing as per order passed by the State Admmistrative Tribunal ia Madhiikaiit Yadu (siipra) aiici subsequenfly con&roied by the Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by onler dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entifled to same reUef accordiiigly. It is expected from the State aiitliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutLoy oftlie facts. It is aiade clear fhat fliis court has not expressed aiiy opinion on the raerits of the case and tlie authority concenied would be at Mberty to decide fhe represeutation strictly ia accordance wifli law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge