^ c . •IGC; IN THE HON»BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No......^c!.uri......2011 PETITIONER ^?..^M^. .,„ to..y--:<^JA.'-^lt"'"" _....-•• ^^".-••r^T^i ^" Bhogi Lal Sidar S/o Shri Thakurram Sidar Aged 52 Years, Lecturer Higher Secondry School Adil Post Aurda District JanjgirChampa (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, -^ Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) /(2) District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa( C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE ^ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCB OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION QF OTHER APPROPRIATE WMT. ^ HIGSi COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SBiHO BL&M1^JVynCSPmTlH^^MW^&R PBTITIONBR RBSPONDENTS W.P.(S).NO. 6004/2011 Bhogi Lal Sidar versus State ofC.G. & Othcrs Shri Soxnkaat Veroia, counsel for fbe petitioner, Shri Pmveen Das, Dy.G.A. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDBRARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (11.10.2011) Grievao.ee of fbe petitioner ia tfae preseat petition is fhat the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of two years aad after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300, Contention offhe coiuisel for fhe petitioaer is Ifcat he m entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect from fhe date of iaitial appouitaient aad his case is squarely covercd wifh nuiaber of decisions passed by fhis Court aad also fhe judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No^ 274S/89 (Ittcfdhulwiftt Yadu Ss S6 Others Vs. State ofM.P. Ss Othersfwhere ia it has been held fhat smularly placed teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale from ftie date offheir iaitial appomtment. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties tiiat the inatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribunal to the efifect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for reguto pay scale from the date oftheir initial appoiataient. In view of fhe above subxiiission niade by fhe counsel for fhe pardes, fhe petition is disposed of m fhe same tenas i.e, the petitioner is graated liberty to raake a representatioa, ifso advised, in ^"^h. ~"'%.^ /'•/sa^ '^ ^ ^ ....... t jj ^sS&Sh 1 I ti%gsssssi| 1 '^ -^y .^' ^^w-' ^ fhe Ught of fhe aforcsaid judgnient aad ffcie circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/5 ) aad ia tum, fhe concemed respondent is dir^ected to consader their case on ite own uierits aiid ia its perspectlve. If fhe petitioner stands on ftxe same footmg as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal ia Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequently confinned by the Suprenie Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to saoie relief accordiagly, It is expected from fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable oxxler after due scrutuiy offhe facts, It is inade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed aqy opiaion on fhe m.erits of the case aad fhe aiifhonty concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representatton strictiy ia accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge