w IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) N0. -7^o$ /2010 PETTriONER '^f^y^S^^Ssys^s RESPONDENTS : 1. ^ ^ ^7 ^^y -^%Y ^-,^ ..y y^ Bhagwat Lal Dewangan, Aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Mayaram bewangan, Upper Division Teacher, &overnment Middle . School, Chhuriyadongri, Chhuriya District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Trible Welfare bepartment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner Tn'ble Welfare bepartment Raipur (C.6.) 3.. AssrstantCommissioner Trible Welfare bepartment Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. bistrict Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. Btock Education Officer Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon (C.6.) r /^^y\ 6. The Principle ^overnment Middle School Chhuriyadongri, bistt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUION OF INDIA /' ^-^ W^T'^1 I^TW^n^i '^TTW^rf^?[ '^ ~3~o5[ ^l|<4td^. ^-al^^co. [®i<rti<ri^< WWTT^W^ 3'iT^T XRT^? ..y..(S..^.2..£^^L )1^ 2t '^^ST' 'SIT^T ^cTT^H: Trifpf S.B.: HON'BLB JUSTXCE MR. PKIITINKBR DIWAKER 15-12-2010 Shri K.S,Pawar, counsel foj Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaii, P Grievaxice of tb.e petitioner in th.e year 1977, the peti.tj.on.er on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 af'ter coiBpletion of probatio.ri^ he ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the co^insel entitled for regTilar pay scale witiji appointnient and his case is sqi decisions passed by this Court a| by the M.P. State Admiaistrative 2745/89 IMadhuteaiit Yadu 85 ^t Others) whereio. it has been hel4 are entitled for regiilar pay scal^ appointoient. It is not disputed by bofh taken up by the State to the Ape^ disiaissed by the Apex Court Tribmial to the effect fhat the entitled for regular pay scale appointment. In view of fhe above subid 41te parties, the petition is d-ispo^ <=M^4I<1 'HTR^ff ^ ftT^t <f^^K ^T ^srf^TTT 3:n^r the petitioner, |L. for the State. [in the present petition is that |vas appomted as Dy. Teaclier |ft>r a perfod of two years ao.d was granted regular pay scale |br the petitioner is that he is effect from tlie date of itrlti.al larely covered with niimber of ad also ftie judgm-ent .rendered 'ribiinal, Jabalpur u.i O.A. No, 6 Others Vs, State of M.P. & that smiilarly placed teachers from the date of their iaitial |:he parties that the niatter wa.s Court but the appeaJ was also ipholding the decision of fhe T^achers/Assistan.t Teachers are froiii tlie date of tls-eir initial .ssion raade by the counsel for :xl^fi2iJli^s.am^J:£jjnsJ^e,,_tfa€, v> + XI-HC-22 ~?^[ ^i<4td<Ll, ^Ti1^'<i<o, f®i<ni^^< sni^r 'q^? 1W^?(Tg^q^—'——^ ^^ "^R^ST' 3TT^T^T k^ 3Tii^T 9b^ich ^ri^^f ^T^T'^IT^R:'Hf^T petitioner is graated Mberty to advised, ia the Ught of th.e Siforcs^ dated 27.12.08 (Annexurc P/2) respondeat is directed to conside] and in ite perspective. If the pe footiiig as per onler pa.ssed by fh^ ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) and Supreine Court in Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995, the petitio| relief accordmgly. x^ake a represeBtatson^ it so" ^id judgment aiid the circiilar |^ud -in tam., tlxe coxicem.ed theii' case o-n its own merits ^itioner staads on the sasiie State Admiaistrate Tribuiial ^bsequently confirmed by fhe -tition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by Lo|aer naay be entitled to .saoie It is expected froin the sta' order after due scrutiny of the fac It is xiiade clear that fh.is opieion on inerits of the case would be at liberty to decide accordaace with law. CM^f<n<fli 'RP^if ^ feT^ <p3l^l< ^37f^TT3n^T h authorities to pass si-dta.ble ^7 3ourt has not expressed aiiy m.d the a.u.tb-ority' concemed b-e representation strictly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1 -.ft^ -^f^,