(a SIMLE kEMw IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS S No. r 2‘3 2011 1. RESPONDENTS: VERSUS l. / WRIT PETITION Shobhan Sai Nag S/o Shri Mayaram, aged about 57 Years, occupation Head Master, at Govt. Primary School Tetka Aama Block Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Balsingh Rathia S/o Shri Sundar Sai, aged about 57 Years, occupation Head Master, at Govt. Middle School Saskoba Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh GD “){4/ (N 3. / / 4. Tribal Welfare Deportment, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Block Education Officer Block Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Block ' Education Officer Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r x < x x w xi x m )> WM WMMW/WW Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) / 2. Assistant Commissioner, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gs).N0. 6629/2011 PETITIONER Shobhan Sai Nag 8t. Another versus RESPONDENW Statc of (LG, 8n Others Shri Anil MOurya, counsel for the petitioners. Shri N’.Naha Roy, Pl. for tho Stats. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievance of the petiu'oners in the present petition is that the petitioners wele appointed 'm the year 1975 as Assistant Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs’ 100 for a period of one year and thereafter in the year 1976 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of one year. After completion of probation, in the year 1978, they were granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that they are entitled for regular pay scale with eEect from the date of initial appointment and their case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administran've Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. N0. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed, teachers are entitled for regular pay scale nom the date of their inin‘al appointment. It 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 by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the ed‘ect that the Teachers] Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioners ale granted liberty to make a representaa‘on, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.08 (AnneXums P/2) and in tuni, the concemed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own men'ts and in its perspective. If the petitioners stand on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tiibunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently com-med by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892] 93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioners may be entitied to same relief accordingly. It is expected nom the State authon'ties to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. bi Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge E 1 i Ln. ii