s.ii^itL'c iifciiiit" IN THE HIGH COURT^)F CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR w. P^(S) No. iS75~-L OF 2011. PETITIONER \k /t^ &•• ..-^ Chandan Singh Sao, S/o. Shri Safi Sao, aged about 54 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School ^^v^^- Q') ^rJ^^ ..•••' Aawlachakka, Block Saraipali, ^o''"'x'^'y" ...••""""' '\'7^1 / District Mahasamund (C. G.) «s'v ..-••" <<1...-<^< ^•"" ^ RESPONDENTS VER S U S : 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C, G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Sarailpali, District > Mahasamund (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner begs to submit as under: "!il<l 2D HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSGARH AT BILABPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR MWAKER W.P.(SLNO. 3751/2011 PETITIONBR Chandan Sin^i Sao yersys RBSPONDBNTS Stete ofC.G. & Others Shri D.R.Patel, counsel fer the petitioaer. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. forthe State. WBOT PBTITIOWUNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THB CONSnTUinOK OFIITOIA ORDBR (26.09.2011) Grievauce of the petitioner ia fhe present petition is (bat the petitioner was appointed-as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after coinptetion of probation, be was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for the petitioner is fhat be is entitled for regular pay scate wifh effect fiom fhe date of iaitial appoiatment aad Us case is squ^^ely covered wifh aiunber ofdecisioas passed by fhis Coiut and also fhe judginent rendered by fhe M.P. State Admnustrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0»A.No. 2745/89 (SSculhuktwt nafa & SC Others Vs. State ofSS.P. 8s Otfters/where in it has been Iteld that similarly placed teachers are entitled for iiegular pay scale from fhe date offheir iaitial appointment. It is npt disputed by bofh fhe parties that fhe matter was taken up by fhe 'ptate to the Apex Court but the appeal was aJso dismtesed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision offhe Tribunal to the effect fhat fhe Teacliers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fixim the date offbeir uutial apponitment. In view of tlie above subaussion inade by the coiinsel for the pqrties, the petition is disposed of ia tfac same terms ie. thc petitioner^s graated Uberty to niake a represeatation, if so adviscd, in •:'"y^\ -•l-^i ''^ ~"!> ^j 'sS' ^ 'yy .'..•f'!.'' ^) the light of fhe aforesaid judgment and fhe circular dated 13.1.09 & 5.1.2011 (Annexuic P/2) and in tura, the concenied respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footui^ as per order passed by fhe State Adininistrative Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequeutly confirm.ed by the Supreine Court ia Speciat Leavc Petitiou (Civilj N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, ttoe petitioner may be entitled tosame reUefaccordingly. It is expected fmm. the State authorities to pass suitable oidcr after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is inade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed any opiaion on the merits of the case aud fhe authority concemed wouM be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordaa<»with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge