(^ •- h ' ( 6 ^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 6l9.q- OF 2011. PETITIONER .^..^ [J:..PV--"'''..•••'''-1 to-y'...<'\ ,/-<y..-<^ v.v^ y ^^ .--"^ *;»* : /^'^Mulchand Agrawal, /' S/o. late Shri Dinbandhu Agrawal, aged about 58 years, Lecturer, Govt. High School Chandrashekharpur, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^n'^nsi!^^ /$y^ r..-'_ ^. •^\ L State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '& l! E. ^ (,' HIQH COORT OP CHHAmSO&RH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKER PBTITIONER W.P.(81.NO. 6127/2011 Mulchaad Agrawal veraus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri Sonikaat Verma, counsel fcr the petitioner. Shri Yashwaut Siagh Thakur, Dy.A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COKSTITUTIQN OFISDIA ORDBR (14.10.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner in the prescnt petition is that fhe petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher oa a fixcd pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after eoinpktion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel &r fbie petitioncr is fhat he is entitled for icgular pay scale vrith effect from ftie date of initial appoiatnient and fheir case is squarely covered witti n.um.ber of decisions passed by this Coiirt aud also fhe judginent rendered by the M.P. State Admiiustrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (JSaOhukant Yadu Ss 56 Others Vs. State ofJIO.P. Se Others/where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale from the date oftheir iuitial appotatment. It is uot disputed by bofh fhe parties that the inatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiug fhe decision of the Tribunal to the effect that fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fi-om the date of their uiitial appoiatment. In view of fhe above submissioa inade by ffae counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of ia the same tenns i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to inake a representatioii, if so advised, in ~->s^- the light of fhe aforesaid judgment aud fhe ciTcular dated 27.12.08 (Aiuiexiire P/5 ) and ia tum, the concemed icspondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footing as per order passed by fhe State Adxiunistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently coitfirmed by the Supreine Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner inay be entitled to satae reUef accorduigly. It is expected fiom fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear fhat this court has not expressed aay opinion on the merits of fhe case aud the authority concemed would be at Uberty to decide flie representation strictly in accordance with law. Pritiisker Diwaker Judge \ ,