- ~i N 1\S o*. o c rt -+ (0o § (A nr» o o' c -s ^o <A -j- -5 r>-i- 1 f T3 <T» c: 8-t- o3 -fl -*1 0N -5 -j ~5-R 0} Ut o-+ coD -<• -h -h 0 f -g c "5 Q (^ n M o-4 o=s s •s> n T3c ~5 oB-t- o3 C7 TO p-h 3 0 1 I. 5 r ~5 3- r> -3 0-+ 03I c^ ? "^ 1 § c: "? c: r> 8 -3 j>§ 3 r1 § o' :+ c: a o Vi 3- i ny 3 o •d- n3 t0 B3 TO ^g 00 N U1 ^o y \v^ HIGH COIXRT OF CHHAmSGARH AT B1LASPVR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITIMKBR 01WAKER W.P.jSl.NO. 6150/2011 Karmu Singh Rataa versus State ofC.G. & Others -^- Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridbar, P.L. for the State, WRIT PETITION UNDBRARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIOM OF !NDIA (17.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitione- was appointed as Depuly Teacher on a fixed pay scate of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two yeara and after conipletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention oftbe counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale witb effect &QIII fhe date of mitial appointnient and his case is squarely covered wiftt nzunber ofdecisions passed by this Coiut and also the judgnient rendered by fbe M.P. State Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 ptddhutcant ycdu & 56 Others Fs. State ofM.P. &, Others)wbere m it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin the date of their mitial appouitment. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat the luatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by tlie Apex Court upholdiag the decision offhe Tribuital to the effect fhat the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled for regiiiar pay scale fiuin the date of their initial appoiatraent. In view of the above subinission made by the counsel for the pardes, fhe petition is disposed of ia the saine terms i.e. the petitioner is graated liberty to inake a representation, if so advised, in fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgment aad fhe circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in tura, fhe conceraed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own ruerits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stauds oa fhe same footing a.s per order passed by fhe State Admitustrati.ve Tribunal in Madhiikant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confinned by the Supreiae Court in Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by omer dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner may be entitled to sarue reUefaccordiugly. It is expected fir>m the State authorities to pass suitable order afiter due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear tiiat fhis court has not expressed any opinion on fhe m.erits of fhe case aad fhe authority concemed would be at Uberty to decide the representation stricfly iu accordaace with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker .Judge