^. 1 -j- n I i -5 O' \ \ Q. W "o o »- ~g ?» ^ 6< <^ "+ —(• "3 "S n o -4- -4- 1 -4- ~a n ~s n-+ 1 r^ ^"^ " rt -+ 0 ~s c: n 3~ -<- o ^ -i- -! 3- .4. -<1'.•^ v..> '.^ '<y "•&..''•: ^ '<SJ~^ ^.-^'o ^\'^M ^'^ & ^. \ ^ •mn^ o n o- n ro ". 5' 3 ^•93 -+ •y 10 ^ c (-=• \- '--.^—'8 ~-^~ ;^mn 11«. v 1^ ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BIUUSPUR < ur/Mur?'i • d^fXf'f^JLtSSt UUJd* »JUDAA<L^Er rjEU. A lA'<jr\&£l W.P.IS1.MO. 6149/2011 Balbhadra Prasad Pafle versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri K-S.Pawar, couasel for the petitiouer. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L, for ffae State. WRIT PETITIOM UHDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (17.10.2011) Grievaace of fhe petitioner ia fhe prescnt petition is that fhe petiUoner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and afiter completion of probation, he was grauted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from. the date of initial appointinent and his case is squarely covered witti number ofdecisions passed by this Court and also tfae judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribimal, Jabalpur ia 0~A. No. 2745/89 pSev&hulCtWt yadu Ss 56 Whers Vs. State of9S.P. & Others) where in it has been held that smulariy placed teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale fi-oiu the date of their initial appointinent. It is not disputed by both the parties tbat the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disinissed by ttie Apex Court upholdiag the decision ofthe Tribimal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin flie date offheir initial appoiatment. In view of the above submission inade by fhe counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia the saiae tenns i.e. fhe petitioner is graated liberty to inake a rcpresentation, if so advised, in g^ri fhe l^ht of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2 ) and ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own inerits aad ia its perspective. If the petitioner staads on fhe same footing as per ordcr passed by the State Admiuistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner luay be entitled to sarae reliefaccordiugly. It is expected fiom tiie State aufhonties to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facte. It is niade clear that fhis court has not expressed aay opinion on the nierits of fhe case aad the autborily concemed would be at Uberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordaace with law. Sd/- ker DH Judge