i- s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR_(C.6.) W.P.fS)NO. r^^(<? /2011 PETTTIONER RESPONbENTS ^s^ ^yy n. ftaudJ^-wfr), Radheshyam Dilip,~'Agedabout 63 years, S/o Shri Raghoram Dilip, Retired Head AAaster, Government Primary School Girls, bhardehi. Block Patharia , bistrJct-Bilaspur IC.G.) VERSUS 1. 2: State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The birector Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer Patharia, bistrict- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUION OF INDIA 3. 4. r b> v^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BSLASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PmTINKER DIWAKER W.P.|S]E.MQ.,7368;2011 PBTSTIOHER RESPONDEKTs versus Radheshyam. .D-1iip State of Chhattisgarh 85 Otliers Shri K.S^Pawar, coiinsel. for tiie petition.er. ShriYashwaiit Smgfa Thalrai', Dy. A.G. for the State. WmT PETITION UNDBR ART2CLS 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDEA OKDER 107.12.2011) Grievao.ee of the petitiouer iii tlie present petiti<Mi is tliat the petitioner was appointed as Asslstaiit Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after completion of probatiosi, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 545-925. Coutention of tlie counsel for the petitioner is tliat he is entifled for regular pay scale with effect froin the date of iuitiai appoiritoient and his case is squarely covered with. niimber of decisions passed by this Court and also fhe judgmeut rendered by tb-e M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A^ JVb. 274S/B9 ^Sc&dhukant TadM'& 56 Ofhers Vs* Sfafe ofMiP^ & CW'feers^ where io. it has beeu held tliat smiilarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni fhe d.ate of fheir initial appoirifcment. It is not disputed by both tlie parties that tlie matter was taken up by fhe State t.o fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by tlie Apex Coiirt upholding tlie decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect tliat the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from. tlie date of fheii' iaitial appoio.tment. In view of the above subinission m.ade by fhe counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same tersiis Le. tlie petitioner is graiited liberty to inake a represeutatioii, if so advised, in ^o the tight of the aforesaid judgment and fhe circiilar dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aiid ia tura, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their ca.se on its own xaerits and ia its perspective. If fhe petitioner stands on the same footing as per orier passed by fhe State Admiaistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreiae Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner Biay be entitied to sanie reUef accordmgly. It is expected froni the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiny oftlie facts. It is inade clear that fhis court has uot expressed axiy opinion ou tiie nierits of the case aad tlie aiidiority conceiTied would be at Mberty to declde the representation strictiy ia accordaace witli law» 1 Sd/- i pritinker Diwaker Judge