!' '^^ _s' \ r» b3 tft n3- oo 00 o Ul Q. 03 6< ra-i 3 § ^ --$ I 1 1 g ^ 5f ? § Ui -+ 1 -I- C: •? o O -CT 3 C: -5 -o r; -h n ^r^~ "^^' Ui n n -h -+< n (9-s -ac ~5 1\> S c. y 3 ? i s 1 Q. ' 3 o' y 3 B. in -5- n o o ~s 6 ^- c P> 10 -~+t Ut <<^ z.'$ i.o. <*. \A '•^•^••^- ^-^& !^^_ ^^v \v I § § 3 8 -I -^ ^ n 9- ^ o -s r> 5-' J \ c: ? % ^: n < "' <1 §' n to <"L 3" 3- 5 ~r n o ui ^ 3 ui 1^> h^ 1^1 I(TN r o -r^ o \^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPXJR 8B : HOIfBLE MR. JU8TICE nUTIBKERDIWAKER PETITIONBR RE8PONDBWTS W.P.tSI.NO. S756/2011 Rain Kuxnar Shrivas versus State ofC,G. & Otb.ers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe peti.tion.er. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for ffae State. WRIT PEynTION UMDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CON8TITUTION OFINDIA ORDBR (27.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner ia the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appoiuted as Depuly Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two yeara and after coinplctioa of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for fhe pctitioner is that he is entifted for regular pay scale with efiFect Qxna. the date of iaitial appointiuent and his case is sqiiarely covered with nuxuber of decisions passed by fhis Court aad ateo ttie judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Administrati.ve Tribimal, Jabalpur in 0»A.No. S74S/89 (Micuihufcunt Yadu Ss 56 Others Vs. State ofSS.P. Ss Others/where in it has been held that siuularly placed teacheis are cutitled for regular pay scale from fhe date pf fheir initial appouitmeat. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat fhe matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismisscd by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision of thc Tribunal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaut Teachers are eatitled for regular pay scale firoin the date oftheir iaitial appoiutment In view of fhe above subniission inade bv the counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of in. the sanie terms i.e. tbe petitioner i^ granted Uberty to m.ake a representation, if so advised, in the l^ht ofthe aforesaid judgiuent and fhe circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aad iu tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its cwn aierits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe saiue footing as per order passed by fhe State Adniinistrative Tribiiaal ia Madhudcant Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfty confirmed by the Supreiae Court in Special Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, thc petitioner may be entitled to same reUef accordingly. It is expected fiom fbs State authorities to pass suitable order afiter due scrutiuy offhe facts. It is inade clear fhat this court has not expressed any opiaion on fhe merits of the case and fhe aufhorily conceraed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation stricfly ia accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge