IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s.) No. éé/l [2011 PETITIONER: VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1) /4’) / Umashanker Sahu S/o Shri Mangal Prasad Sahu, aged about 56 years, Working as Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kharoud, Distt Janjgir—Champa (ca) / State of Chhattisgarh Through :‘ The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (c.G'.j The District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa, (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir~Champa (C.G.) Joint Director Accounts Treasury and Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) CONE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2‘26 OF THE STITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB z HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.[S}.NO. 66 1 1/ 201 1 PETITIONER Umashanker Sahu versus RESPONDENTS State of CG. 85 Others Shn' K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pmveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONETITUTION OF INDIA ~ ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievance of the petiu'oner in the prcsent petition is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, in the year 1978, he was granted regular pay stale of Rs. 169-300. I Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial 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 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & 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 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 effect 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 petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in 0/4 the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P] 2 ) and in turn, the concerned rcspondent 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 Adminisuative Tn'bunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently conhrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected horn the State authoriu'es 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. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge rMM