'@ CD IN THE HIGH URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) Naggé 0f 2011 PETITIONER: Idra Kumar Verma S/ o Shri Gaya Ram Verma, Aged about 57 years, U.D.T., Govt. Middls School Bharar, Block Patan Dist- Durg (C.G.) VU ERSS RESPONDENT : 1. 'Dhe State of Chattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, “Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District e Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CO /h S h \ r35 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTKSGARH AT BELASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gsy.No. 7596/201 1 PETITIONER Indra Kumar Verma VEI‘SUS RESPGNDENTS State of Chhatiisgarh 8r. Others Shn’ S.K.Thomas, comma] far the petiiioner. Shn' Praveen Das, Dy‘ GA. for me State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.12.2011) Grisvance of the pe’ritionar in the pmsmlt petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed. pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date /of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. Na. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appoinixnent. It 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 Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to mmm a represenmtion, if so advised, in Wm“. m... Qg the light of the afomsaid judgment alad The circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own melits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 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 order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with. law. ‘ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge n ’A/M