3 4001/ / C‘ , § 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. 4L%9 12011 Bhawan Raipur, C.G. /«2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. WRITV PETITION UNDER' ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN ‘APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONIORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. va-AwA : -.. f'‘SJkH‘“*'xwa-au ;A ammuu c .;fi,/ w PETITIONER / Samaru Singh Dhruv S/o Dasru , singh Dhruv, aged about 49 years, W§Q\4/°A%Q¢ Occupation Service, Posted as Head €95W i) Master Primary School Lapti, Block ....... e$°"o® \fVO\ . W . Lormi, District Bilaspur C.G. Q’Q‘ ........ \‘b \ .0 ¢a€v*""" VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1. State of C.G. through the Secretary School Education Department , DKS 2% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p.g8).No. 6299/2011 PETITIONER Samaru Singh Dhruv Versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Others Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitionar. Shri A‘:V. Shn’dhar, P.L. for thc State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Exed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after completion of probau'on, he was glanted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with e§ect &om the date of 1mt1a1 appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu 85 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. 8s Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was mken 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 e§ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale h‘om 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 petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in g7 the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 0301.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected. mm the State authorities to pass suitable order after due shruiiny 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. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge