^ / IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No.....3..'2-.'5.^...2011 PETITIONER ^...^X(-^ .v'.-"l^''...-\"'^ >fy> ••io'" -s'"'.'^ ^ ..-^- <c<r'i.,..-••" ^s RESPONDENTS (1) (2) Vishnu Rara Dhruve S/o Shri Mukut Ram Dhruve Aged 59 Years, Head Master Primary School Manikpur Block Pali District Korba (C.G) / VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPMATE WRIT. Its..^^^ Petitioaer versus Vishnu Ram. Dhruve State of C^ihattisgarll 85 Otiiers Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri ShashankThakur, P.L. for the State. • Grievaace of the petitioner ui fhe present petition is that fbe petitioner was initiaUy appointed as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after coinpletion of probation, h.e was graated reglllarpay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scate witll effect from. the date of iaitial apponitment and bis case is squarely covered wifh nuinber of decisions passed by ttiis Court aud also fb.e judgment residered by the M.P. State Admiuistrati.ve Tribunal, Jabalpiir ia O.A. No. 2745/89 (SIetShukant ycdu & 56 Others ys. State ofSK.P. & Ofehers^where m it has been held that suailarly placed teachers are ennfled for regular pay scale fiom fh.e date offheir initial appoiatm.ent. It.is not disputed by bofh tbe pardes tliat the raatt.er was taken up by tlie State to fhe. Apex Court tiut fhe appeal was also disiaissed by tjie Apex Court upholding fhe decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect fhat ftiie Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regiUar pay scale froin tlte date of fheir initial appom.tm.eut. 1 In view of fhe above subinission luade bv the counsel for the pai-ties, the petition is disposed of ia the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to niake a representation, if so advised, in tiie light of fhe aforesaid judgiaent and fhe circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/5) and in tura, the concemed respondent is directed to 'iht "saife, ^\ consider his case on its own merits aad ia its perspectiye, If fhe petitioner staads on the same footixig as per order passed by fhe State Adiiiitustrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aud subsequently confinned by the Supreiiie Court in Special Leave Petiltion (Civu) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petiti.on.er inay be entifled to same relief accorduigly. It is expected from the State aufhorities to pass suitable order a&er due scrutuiy of fh.e facts. It is inade clear that fhis court has not expressed aay opinion oa fb.e inerits of the case aad the aufhorily coiicemed would be at Uberty to decide fbe representation stnctiy in. accordaace with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge