i's IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^y^ OF 2010. SINGLE toWCH PETITIONER Y ?.^-:-:6S5S^ ^^&^'-- l..-"-6 •»-"BN<>< RESPONDENTS '^^ 5mt. Vimala Giri, W/o. Shri Pitamber Giri, aged about 52 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Mudapara, Sarona, Block-Narharpur, District Kanker (C. G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. " Assistant Conimissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) 3. ^Block Education Offlcer, Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) ^" . ; . . ' 4. Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA —78 WH<tT(lt^HT^» 'S^T ^l'Ml^ ^Tl1^<l<o, fc(dl-!-ltl< ..W;..£....<^:).^..£/.^^ 200 ^TT^m^°F (yii^^I) ^n^T^r KTiich ^n 3?i^?r sh^jch ^^TWC ^Tf?^ ^T^l <sM^t<n<fli 'siTq^ff ^ felst ^Pt^K ^3tfOT3?n^r SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITtNKBR DIWAKER 26.10.2010 Shri Somkant Venna, courj Shri Suniesh Bajaj, Dy. G^. for the State. Grievaace of fhe petitionerj ,sel for fhe petitioiier, ic. the present petition. is that iii the yeai* 1977, he. was appoi^ited as Dy. Tea.clier 011 a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a conipletion of probation, she w^s graated regiilar pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel period of t^vo years. and -afte.r for the petitioner is that she is enti.tl.ed for regular pay scale. wi-tji. eifect f?x>m. th.e date of miti.al appoiritiiient aiid her case is sqj decisions passed by this Court ^ad also the judgment rendered by the M.P, State Admiaistratwe | 2745/89 pMladhukant Yada 85 ^ Otliers) wherein it has beeu helcj ore entitled for regular pay sc^ appoititment. larely covered with nuniber of Tribiinal, Jabalpur in O.A< No. 6 Others Vs. State of M.P. SB that sirmlarly placed teachers froxix the date of their itiitial It is aot disputed by both p:ie parties that fhe matter was taken up by the State to tlie Ape: dismissed by the Apex (3ourt Court but the appeal was also l.iphold.m.g the decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect that the T^achers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled for regular appoiatinent, entifled for regular pay scale trom the date of their mitial \ I.HC—78 ^IN^IT (h^n^s 'S^ ^WW^, '^ft^FT^, f®ldl^^< ^...kl...S:...a>^....QAr...<o.i^| ^ 200 ^n^?i TT5W (^f^5^) STI^T ^T'RFffcF ^T^T^TY^T 9fi^{^ ^nw^f?^ 3^?i In view of the above submis fhe parties/ fhe petition is dispose petittouer is graated Uberty to advised, ia fbe light of ftie afores^ dated 27.12.2008 (.-tonexiire P/6 respondent is directed to conside] aiid iri its perspective. If the p footmg as per order passed by in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and s Supre.32ie Court in Special Leave I order dated 3.1.1995, the petitio reHef accordiagly, ^sion niade by fhe counsel for Id ofia. fhe same terms ie. the jjiiake a representation/ tf so ^id jiidgment and the circular I- and m. tiim., tlie concemed I- their case on its own ments btitioner staiid on the sanie State Adiniiiistrate Tribunal s|ubsequenfly confirmed by the 1'etition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by icbier may 'be entitled to same tbfc It is expected froin tlie stat order after due scnitmy of fhe fac It is niade clear fhat fhis opiaion on xiierits of the case would be at Hberty to decide accordao.ee with law, c»ii^<n<iiiw^ ^ f^^> <rai<^« ^sffim^ii^r authorities to pass suitable :s. pourt has not expressed axiy ^jid the authority concemed |he representation strictiy in Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge