Kw \r/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT-OF CHHATTISGARH AT ‘ BILASPUR $§ng!a’%gnai w.p. (S) No. 61% /2o1o Nand Lal Patel S/o Niranjaan Lal Patel aged about 58 years, presently working as Head Master in Govt. Primary School, Kerajhhar Block— Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (c.G.) PEITIONER: T VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: — Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District Raigarh (C.G.) The Block Education Officer Block— Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (cc) RESPONDENTS: Grievance of the petitimmr n ’rhe presezlt patih‘on i$ that fhe patitkmer was appoimad as T ach€r on a facsd pay seals of Rs. 100— 150' for a period. of two ears and after completion of probation, he was granttd regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of Th6 counsel i'ha petitioxmr is fhat he is entitied for regular pay scale wit effect from the date of initiai appointment and his caee is squ rely covered with n'um})er of decisions passed by this Comt also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative . ribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 iMadhukant Yadu as 5 ' Gthezs Vs. State of ME. a5 Othexs3 wherein it has been hem that simiiarly placed teachers are entithd for regular pay scaie £rom the date of their ini1ia1 appointment. It is not diseuted by both parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex ourt but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court ohiing the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Te chersiAssistant Teachers are entitied. for regular pay 3oale m the ciate of their initiai appointment. r d e C h o m m faw‘m - ammm mW (W) mmWm W?W ’wW $Wm SB : HGN’BLE MR. JUSTICE PR1 INKER DIWAKER 29.10.2919 Shri Ajav Kumar Bardk, co usd for the petitionar. $m—i Vix‘rek Shanna, PL. £0- ’Lhe State. XI-HC-7 8 ’mé ‘m 200 WWW Immm WW WW ém‘mm In viaw of the abova sub ion made by the counssl for mj s the parties, the peu‘tion is dispos d of in the same terms i.e. the: petitioner is granted liberty to ke a representation, if so judgment and the circular datai 27.12.2008 (Atmexure P/ l and. in tum, the concemeci respondent is directeé to consid r their case on its own merits and in its perspectives If the titioner stand on the same footing as per order passed by State Administrate Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu. {supra} anti ubsequently confumed by the Supreme COurt in Special Leave etitjon {Civil} No. 6892] 93 by order dated 3.1.1995, the petit er may be entitled to same relief accordinglv. It is expected. from the state authoxities to pass suitab‘ie order after due scrutinv of the facts. - a(1vise:d, in tha Eight of the, afore' It is made dear that this Court, has not expressed any opinion on merits of &e case and the authority concerned wouid he at. liberty to decide the representation snictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge (MmeN a a ‘d e e i n