£ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCS&ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS) N0. PETITIONERS .,.4- e2^ /:^7 ^^ .yxy^ /^y %7: '^' .A /'y' ^:' ^J ^' / ,.^ 1. <^M^j) /2010 Siya Ram Dubey, S/o Shri Ram Pratap Dubey, aged about 50 years, Head Master, ^ovt. Primary School, Sargaon, Block- Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Madhe Ram Singh, S/o Shri Anuk Sai, a9ed bout 48 years, Upper Division Teacher. ^ovt. Middle School Raghunathpur, Block - Lundra, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Rojleena Tigga (Now Ekka) W/o Shri Manohar Ekka, aged about 50 years, Upper Divison Teacher, Govt. Boys Middle School, Darima, Block- Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Md. Sayed Ansari, S/o Shri Adam Ali, aged about 49 years, Upper Division Teacher, ^ovt. Middle School, bakai, Block - Lundro, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)o^ > ^- ^?w.^ RESPONDENTS 5. Son Sai Bhagat, S/o Late Shri Matlu Ram, aged about 54 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Boys Middle School, Bargidih, Block- Lundra. Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 6. Lusi Jasinta Xalxo (now Lakra), W/o Shri Yusuf Lakra, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Tundur, Dihari, Btock- Ambikapur, bistt. Surguja (c.e.) 7. Asha Tiwari (now Pandey) W/o Shri Ramesh Kumor Pandey, aged about 48 years, Head Master, &ovt. Primary School, Bhagwanpur, Block- Ambikapur, bistt - Surguja (C.&.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education bepartment, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. bistrict Education Officer, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)a, T 1 3 WRIT PEimONUNbER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA. f^^ HC-22 3TT^T^T 'f^iW'sniSr 5h4-ii<^> 'Miici ^^ ^tl^td^, '^frOT^, t^TRTy 3Tr^r 1q?ra? U-9<J^1 -N^-IH^ "^ 200 'RTO^Il^RTch 'fN^T' <3^T ^??T€:RTffN ^B.^HQK*BLE,J'UST!CBMR..PJ^TINKERDIWAKER 16-12-2010; Shn Anil Singh Rajpzit, cou^ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaii, P.|! Grievaxice of fhe petitionersj tiie petitioners were appointed asj pay scale of Rs. 150 for a coHipletiori of probation, they wei^ Rs. 545-925. isel for fhe petitioners. /. forfhe State, lin. the present petitson is th.at Assistant Teachers on a fixed pejiiod of two years and after a graiited regular pay scale !of Contention of the counsel ^ are entifled for regular pay scale) initial appoin.tiaent and fheir c^ nuniber of decisions passed bj judgnient rendered by the M.P. Jalialpur m O.A. Ho. 2745/89 |WJ Vs. State of M.P. & Others) w| simij.arlv placed teachers are eiit.il the date of theii' iiiitial. appoixitmei j It is not disputed by both t] talcen up by the State to fhe Apex dismissed by the Apex Court u Tribunal to tlie effect. tliat the T& entitled for regular pay scale appointinent. _L. In view of the above sub.xni ^n^Tq^'Rm^if ^ tt^'tf^R '^^rf^PT^T^T ITJF fhe petitioriers is that they witli effect froiB th.e date of ILSC is squarely covered"wifh ^- this Court axid also the ttate AdmLiaistrative Tribiinal, tadhiikaaat Yadii & 56 Others bei'eia • it Iias 'beeii heM th.at |ied for i^giilar pay scale fro.m. llt. ^e parties tl'iat ttie niatter was pourt but fhe appeal was also ij^holditig fhe decision of the ^chers/Assistajit Tea.chers are fifc>m, the date of fh.eir isiiti.al |sion m.ade by the couiisel for ^y fh.e parties, the petition is disposed ofiti the saine term.s i.e{'Tlt.d^^^ ^' . ..' :'.\ ff' i:'"::'- \ it y!-...........Xl|HC-22: 1 "aKJ7" ^^y "^^.^^' 371^1'5FT R-iJch' 3T1^?T ^^icn ^^ ~5^T ^TPT^PT, 'g^TRFT^, I^TRiy 3^?i^T 'q?r^ ^m^\ ^Hsch •^ 200 ^TT^T'^^T^R'Hfi?T petitioners are granted Bberty tcj advised, ia the Ught of the aforesjaid dated 27.7.09 (Annexiire P/5) respondent is directed to cousid^r aiid iii its perspective. If tbe p{ footm.g as per order passed by tl| in Madhukajit Yadu (supra) and Supreiiie Court in SpeciaJ. Leave order dated 3.1,1995, fhe petitic^ners reMef accordiagly, make a representation, if so judgnient and ttie c.-ircular jand ni tunx, th.e concem-ed their case on. its own m-erits ttitioiiers staxid on the same ie State Adiiiio.istra.te Tribunal fezibseauentlY contiraied bv the ^etition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by m.ay be entitled-to saizie It is expected froiu flie sta|:.e aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scratiay ofthe fac|ts. It is Biade cleai* that this / opmion 011 merits of fhe case would be at Hberty to decide accordance with law, .L.- chl<Llfd^1"1 tHH^f ^ 'fe^ ^fa^K ^T'STf^m 3TT^T |Coiirt has not expressed any ^iid fh.e aufliori.ty concemed |:he representation stricfly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^£ [Tfr^ '^f'rl