^ ^^ -fh ..^ ^" c^^^"^ingla Bfifl^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. ^9-L( /~~^2010 Petitioners 1 2. Smt Meera Mistry aged about 52 years, W/o Mrimmy Mistry by Caste Namosudura Presently Posted as Head Mistress Govt. Primary School Village & Post Pankhajore Distt. Kanker Ramesh Meshram aged about 49 years, S/o Ganpat Meshram Presently Posted as Head Master Govt. Primary School P.V. 53, Village and Post Gondahur Tahsil Pankhajore, Distt. Kanker ^ Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Tribal and Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Distt. Kanker 3. District Education Officer, Distt. Kanker 4. Treasury Account and Pension Distt. Kanker WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Respondents hN«^ Amit '-T^ HIGHCOyRXQF CHHAniSGARH M BILA8FUR , WRir pE'rmoN <s) No. 2242 of2010 PETmONER : Smt. Meera Mistry & another. VERSUS RBSPONDENT8 : State ot Chhattisgarh & Others. WMJL.Pm'HKW UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF 'I'HE CONS'ITI'UnON OF 1NDIA SB: Hois'fete SSiri Satish K. Asnshoiri. J..: ',;,:; - • •• ^-.^ Present: Shn Parag Kotecha, Advocate tbr fhe petitioners. Shri N.N.Roy, Paael Lawyer fbr the gtato/^^ondentB, OMUJ£R_(OKAL). ........ - .-•---.-...-.•^w s. ' - -.::: (Passed Qn06uldayofMay,201Q) ^ 1. Leamed counsel appearing for Itoe petitioners submtts fhat the petitioners were appointed initially as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay on probation. Atter completion oftheir respeotive probation period fhe petition^s were gi'anted regular pay scale. Leamed counsel ftxrfher subxmts tihiat fhe issue involved in the case is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w^ the date of mitial appointm^it or alter ccmipldi^^^^o^ probation period. 2. Leamed counsel for the parties jointly suhmit that tiie issue involved herem was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribiiinal, Jabalpur (for short "the SAT') in O.A.No.2745/89 (MadhukantJc^emd 56othersvs. State of.M.P, <& <??^r^), wherein it was heM fhat fhe similwly situated teactiers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e^ ttie date ofeuiitial appomtaient. Fhe tnatter was taken up to llie Supreme Court. The ^ppeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholdmg the decNc^i of tiie Tribuna! to the etfect ttiat Ihe Teachex^/AssiiStatit Teachers are ^ititled to regular pay scale irom date ofmJtial appomtmerrt. i 3. In view ofthe above submissions made by leamed counsel ibr the parties^ ttie writ petition i& disposed of in fhe same terms i.e., the petitoi^i^ granted liberty to make a representation to the respondait aufh<mties, if so advised, to consider their cases and pass appropriate order^ 011 its OWR merit and in its perspective, subject to veritication oftiie ^&te and m the Ix^ht of the order passed by the 8AT mMadhukant IWu (supra) and subsequenfly contirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civili No. 6892/93 by order dated 3-1-1994. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge w'.^ ^.L^