Singie Bench t §> C XK ‘\®a V ,/1/ CD: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU§E OF CHHATTISGARH i AT BILASPUR W.P.(s.) No. 5 05% /201 1 PETITIONER; /’ Jagannath Singh Thakur 5/0 Shri Makam Singh Thakur, Aged ‘ about 50 years, Working as Head Master R/o Village Chhote Atarmuda Raigarh, District Raigarh LOG.) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS /' 1. State of Chhattisgarh ‘ I Through Secretary School ‘ Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) /3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) A -‘ ‘ w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. W.P.gSl.NO. 5098i201 1 Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitionér. Shri Pfawen D33, Dy. G. A. for tha State. WRIT pETITmN UNDER ARTxCLE 226 m» THE comswwrmm OF mum ¥ ORDER (02.09.2011) Grievance of the petitionw in r‘he pmsgm petition is that the; petitioner was appointed as Assisiant Teacher on a iixed pay scale. of Rs. 100 for a pen‘od of 1W0 years and after completion of proban‘on, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitionergs that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment aaid his case is squarely covered with number of decisions paesed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OuA. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State efMZP. & Others) where in, it has been held that similarly placed teacl‘lers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment, lt 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 Cour}. upholding the decision of the ’l‘tihunal to the effect that the Teacher's/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. ln View of the above sul)mission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the PETITIONER .Jagannath Smgh versus RESPONDENTS c9; the light of the aforesaid judgmgm and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P] 2) and in tum, thé concerned respondsnt is directed to considcr his case. on its own merits and in its perspective. 1f tha petitioner siamis on the same footing aS per order passed by me State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukam. Yadu {eupra) ami subsequently confhmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civin 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 onier after due scrutiny ofthe facts. 1t is made dear that this court has not expressed any oyinian on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be al' liberty to decide the representation suicl'ly in accordance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge