@ gmg€ @wwka CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N8W$Of 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER : Dindayal Deshmukh S/o Shri Son Singh Deshmukh, aged about 58 years, Asst. Teacher Primary School Nawwgaon Block— Gunderdehi,Dist— Durg. (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / : 1. The State of Chhattisgath, through the Secretary, School Education Department, v’.’ Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, ’ Raipur (C.G.) \\ w 2./The CommiSSioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, //Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) M SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.§SI.NO. 7409 l 201 1 HIGH COURT OF éHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR Shri SKEhomas, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Yashwailt Singh Thakur, Dy. AG. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER AETICLE 225 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (08.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitleti for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgnent» rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OA No. 2745/89 madhukant YMu & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It. is not disputed by both the parties that. the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eil‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from ‘the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties: the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in x . versus RESPGNDEWI‘S . State of Chha‘r‘dsgarh 8n Others @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P] 1) and in nun, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confixmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. SdF Pritinker Diwakar Judge