5 B SIN6LE BENCH IN THEHON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (Sl No.^J^ /2011 ^ ^'^:U€- ^^^ ^^^ >••*' ^" RESPONDENTS: I Bhulauram Sahu S/o Shri Sohan Lal Sahu about 53 Years occupation Head 1* Master Govt. Middle School Murli, Block Pali Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, y (C-G-) 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur District . Raipur (C.G.) / 3. AssistarLt Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION_OF INDIA ^ HIGH COXJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON*BLB MR. JUSTICB PRniNKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RBSPOWDBNTS W.P.ISI.NO. 5636/2011 Bhiitaiiram Sahiu versus State ofC.G. & Ottiers Shri Ajay Kumar Barik, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri PraveeB Das, Dy, G.A, for the State, 'WVSST PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB COWSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDBR (22.09.2011) Grievaace of fhe petitioner ia fhe present petition is fhat tiie petltioner was mitiaUy appoiated on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 150 and after coniptetion of probatk>n, he was graiited regular pay scale, Contention of the counsel for flie petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale wifhi effect from fhe date of iaitial appoiafaiient aad his case is squarely covered wifti niiuxber ofdecisions pasaed by fhis Court and also fhe judgnient rendered by fhe M.P. State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0«A* JWo. 2745/89 <38tedfcufe€Utt Tadu & 56 Others Vs. Stnte ofStt.P. & Wfcers^where ia it has beea held fhat smularly placed teachers are entlfled for regular pay scale froni fhe date offheir initlal appoiatment. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat tihe matter was teken up by the State to the Apex Court but fhe appasal was also disxaissed by the Apex Court upholdmg fhe decision offhe Tribimal to the ejffect fliat the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers arc entitied for regular pay scale from fhe date oftheir initial appomtment, In view of fhe above subxnission niade by fhe counsel for fhe pardes, the petition is disposed of in fhe same terms i.e. the petitioner is graated liberty to xaake a represeatation, ifso advised, m. fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5,1.2011 ^ (Armexure P/2) and ia tuni, tiie concemed respondeiit is directed to consider fheir case on its own merits aad in its perapective, If fhe petitioner stands on fhe same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Adimxdstrative Tribunal m Madhukaat Yaxlu (su;pra) aad subsequenfly confiroied by fhe Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entifled to same reUef accordiagly, It is expected J&om fhe State authorities to p^ss suftable order affcer due scrutiny ofthe facte, It is made clear that this coiirt has not expressed any opmion on fhe nierits of fhe case and fhe authorily concemed woiild be at Hberty to decide tiie representation stdctiy ia accoidance wifh law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge