® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N079080f 2011 PETITIONER: Karan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Suk Lal Sahu, aged about 58 years, Head master, GovtPrimary School, Block Durg, Dist— Durg.(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGI-I COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB z HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DKWAKER w.P.gS).No. mos/201 1 PETITIONER Karan Singh Sahu Versus RESPONDENTs State of Chhat‘risgarh 8r. Others Shri S.K.Thomas, coun scl for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L‘ for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.201 1) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a flxed 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 entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the (late / of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State afM.P. 8; Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. f‘r 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 eit‘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 bv the counsel for the paities, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, 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 confirmed 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 Older after due scn‘itiny 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, Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge