IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No?" f2o11 PETITIONER : Ram Kumar Shrawan S/o Shri Ramdeo Shrawan, aged about 56 years, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School Kaneri, Block Gurur, Dist—Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) kyxv~W 2. The Commissioner, Public 4 i 51 Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Rajpur (co) 3. The District Education Officer, District ~ Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 19‘ w 651 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JU$TICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gS).xvo. 780512011 Shri S.K.’]‘homas,. counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ellandresh Shm'vastavé, PL: for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Z26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Grievance of the pstitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with etfect 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 & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & 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 ot'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 PE’I‘I’I‘IGNER Ram Kumeu" Shrawan Vcl‘sus RESPONDENTs State of Chhaftisgarh &, Othm‘s th€ light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in turn, the concerned respondent 1's directed to consider their 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 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due sdrutiny 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. i i l l l Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge