4- ^) SInsla B-giish IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF WHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR_(C.6.) W.P. fsy NO, ^il /2011 PETTTCONER RESPONDENTS : ^p^.r'-vS^-'",...- ^••'"" ..-;•" ^-y^-^^b ?>•' ...»:; '' ...;•"; f?^ ^'' ^INN/^ ^"^ !•(U. K^ul^ | • Ramchandra Shrivas, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Sukhram Shrivas, Head Master, Government Middle School Devkirdri, Block Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department ^' D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.6.) 3.* District Education Officer, Bilaspur, Distn'ct-Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.6.) \^ .^'>. ^^ '< -<y •'ffTa^ WRIT PEm-EON UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUION OF INDIA '& 1 ^ HISH COURT OF CHHATTISSAKH AT BILASPUR : HON'BLB MR. J'USTICg. >.|S).] PBTITIONBR Versus Rasiichandra Shrivas State cf ChhattisgaTh 8u Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fbe petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. Grievaace of tlie petitioner ia fhe preseat petition is that the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher/Traiiiee on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aitd after coinnletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froin the da.ie /of iaitial appointment aiid his case is squarely covered with nuillber of decisions passed by this Court and also tlie judgiaent rendered by the M.P. State Adiamistrati.ye Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. JVo. S745/S9 p?adhufca?it Teidu 8s. SS dthers Vs. State afM.P. & Others; where ia it has beeH held tliat similarly piaced teachers are entitled for regular pay scale frora fhe date of their ininal appouitment. It is not disputed by both. ttie parties that tlie inatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disinissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiiig t-fae decision of the Tnbunal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni fhe date of th.eir initial appom.tm.ent. In view of the above subniission made bv fhe counsel for tlie parties, the petition. is disposed of in the saiae tenns i.e. the petitiouer is graated Uberty to luake a represen^ation, if so advised, m. »"'9.e ^, the light of ftie aforesaid. judgment aud the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) and in tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider ftieir case on its own merits and in its perspecti.ve. If fhe. peutioner stands on tiie same footiag as per order passed by ftie State Adinirustrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confiriaed by the Supreiue Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01,95, the petitioner laay be entitled to saiue reliefaccordingly. It is expected from fh.e State authorities to pass suitable order after due sci-utm.y oftlie facts. It is inade clear tb.at fhis court has not expressed any opuiion on the nierits of the case asd the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation. strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker | - .Judge