^ SIHGLC '^z- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETCTCON (5) N0..61^..../2010 PETCTIONER / A°<^ ^sfy '..••-^V\\9^' ^ ,L</"\><! ^^>>>" ^- .:^' RESPQNDENTS /l. N Khushi Ram Patel, Son of Jagat Ram Patel, aged about 50 years (U.b.T.), Govt. Higher Secondary Schoot, Kondtarai, bistrict Raigarh R/o. Vitlage Kondtarai, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Education Depart- ment, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.), bistrict Education Officer, Raigarh, District Rai^Qr^(C.G.), Block Education Officer, Raigarh, bistrict Raigarh (C.G.), Principtal Government Higher Secondary School, Kondtarai, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.6.), WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE COUNSrCTUTCON OF INDIA ^ 2. 3. 4. -HG—78 'ysf ^Nid^, '^tft'flFH?', t^TRTy ^^^^..|,.(,.£...a:).....M......6^ 3TT^?T TRW (7^Ff33I^T) Cp 200 ^^ 'SRT RT1(<4i TT!8TT 3TR?T^RW ^HW ^f^a 3T7^T SB : HO^'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRtTINKERDIWAKER 25.10.2010 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for Shri Vaibhav GoverclhaD., P ^he petitioner. |L. fortheState. Grievance .of the petitioner he was Qppointed as Dy. Teach< 100-150 for a period of two y probation, he was graiited regula] |ni tiie present petition is that JT on a fixed pay scale of Rs. ^ars aiid after compietion of ^ pay scale ofRs. 169-300. ahd Contention of tibe counsel entitled for regular pay scale wit|i appoip.tiaent and his case is sqi decisions passed by fhis Court by the M.P. Sta.ie Admiiiistrative 2745/89 |Madhxakant Yadu & 4< Others) whereio. it has been hel4. are entitled for regular pay scal^ appouitinent. It is not disputed by both. taken up by the State to fhe Ape^ dismissed by the.Apex Court Tribunal to the effect th.at the T<j; entitled for regular pay scale appointment In view of the above subid fh:€-parti.e®i;.the pefit ^ -(<a -^^^ cr»i^<yi^i'WTOf ^* fe^ ^^K '^3tRm3TT^T |for ftie petitioner is fhat he is elfect from, the date of in.i.tial. larely covercd witli number of also tlie judgsiient rendered frribunal, Jabalpiir ia O.A. Mo» t6 Others Vs. State of M.P. 85 that similarly placed teachers from. the date of tlieir iaitial |;he parties fhat tlie niatter was Court but the appeal was also bipholdisig the decision of the ^achers/Assistaat Teachers are Ifrom. tlie date of tJieir io-itial .ssion made .by fhe cpunsel for -r1 of-in the sRme terms i^Jhe XI-HG—78 •3-55T ^(t<4i<r|^, '^tft~<FT^, l^n^iy ^^^^...U..(.'....a.i...^..i^^ 3'TT^T Tf^K (1?^^) 371^T ^T f<rli<=b TT2TT ^TT^T ^Rhp '^nW^f^T377^T tHe petitioner is graoted liberty to advised, ia tlie light of fhe albres^id dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P/7| respondent is directed to conside|r aad ni its perspective. If tbe p^ footing as per order passed by ia Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and Supreiae Court io. Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995, fhe petiti4 relief accordmgly. It is expected froin the order after due scrutiny offhe fa^s. ^nake a representation, if so judgnient and fhe cii'cular and ia turn, the concemed their case on its own merits btitioner stands on tlie sarne State AdBiinistrate Tribiinal tubsequently confirmed by the fetition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by }?ner may be entitled to ssiiie sta(:e autliorities to pass' suitable cM<iF<n<J1i TTTR^if ^f 'fe^ <f^i^i< ^ 3TRTH 3T?^T Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge