^ Singte Bm'i,^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATn:S6ARH AT BILASPUR IC.G.) W.P (S) N0. ^^ /2011 PETITIONER n' s;* fc«" ^€<°)r{ ^t,<^~ ^.--" a , '^"" >"^rT -./ RESPONDENTS : 1. 2. ^ 3. 4. 5. Ramsahay Ujir, Aged about 59 years, S/o Late Shri l-1ariram Ujir, Head Master, Government Kanya Aashmm Middle School Bhaisma, Block Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Korba (C.G.) Block Education Officer Korba, District- Korba (C.6.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUION OF INDIA ^ SB : HON?BLE JUSTICB PHITIMKBR DIWAKBS versus Raiasahav ui'ir State of Chhattisgarh & Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the peutioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State. OF SND!A Grievaace of fbe petitioner iu the present petitioa is fhat. tlie petitioner was appoiiited as Assistaat Teacher/TTaiaee on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after coinpletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention offhe couasel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entitied for regiilar pay scale wifh effect froni fhe date /bf iiutial a.ppointmRnt aad his case is squarely coveied witli number of decisions passed by fhis Court and also fb.e judgment rendered by th.e M. P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. ffo. 2745/89 jM'adfeufcanS fa&v. 8s 56 Others Vs. Stecte ofSLP. & Others) where irs. it has 'been held that simiEarly placed teacliers are entifled for regular pay scale froBi fhe date oftheir uiitial a.ppoiatm.ent. It is not disputed toy botli the parties fhat tlie niatter was takea up b}- fhe State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed bv fhe-Apex Court upholding fhe decision of ffae Tnbiinal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled tor regular pay scale froia the date of ttieir iaitial appom.tment. In view of the above subaiission inade by the counsel for ftie parties, tb.e petition is disposed of £n tlie saiae tenns i.e. fhe petitioner is granted liberty to inake a representation, if so advised, in ?'' ;.••.— Y ^^ tlie light of the aforesaid judgment aad fhe circiilar dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/ 2) aiid m. tuni, fhe concerued respondent is directed to consider tlieir case on its own m.erits and iii its perspective. If tbe petitioner staads ou fhe same footing as per order passed by the State Admiuistrative Tribiuial in. Madhukant Yadu (supraj aad subsequently confu-med by fhe Supreiae Coin-t in Special Leave Petition (Civii) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner niav be entitled to sam.e reli.cf accordinglv. It is expected from fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitinv ofthe facts. It is inade clear fhat this court has not expressed any opinion on fiie nierits of the case and the aufhority concemed wo-al.d be at. Ubert5r to decide fhe represents.tion strictly ui accordance witfi law. Sd/- PritiisSter Diwaker Judge