4-' 9" °. f. s §" u e 3 o- 4 1 ^. <"'* ^ ? § :^ K ~< >nn ^ m Q. a; -+ g 5 in O -h 1 s ^ S--' -5 -h -h n "<» '° "'p ^,. \'^\ ^ \ :^.\ > "k\^ -^ •: '^: -V* o-' \ '••.^••. '^& ^Xt' "5 -+ o o n 1 •-+ fr-A i1 -3 tri' °- >§ 0> 3" Q 3- <3 S- o u» 10 B -3 c ^ y> ? ^ l' s- § § ?. S °- " n =- — ~ 0» ?? "3- ° o o ro 1 I- ? i ^ § s» 1 '-» ^ o "9 j~° 11 -" ? j 3 8 § ^ g- a. n; ^. Q. i3- ° TO' c "o (£1 TO 0o" u] ^^ (S^ ^- HIGH CXyORT OP CHHATTISGAim AT BILASPUR 8B : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICE PRITINKER DIWAKBR PBTITIOBBR KBSPONDBMTS W.P.tSl.MO. 5596/2011 Manik Lal Sahu versus State ofC.Q. & Ofhere Sbri K.S.Pawar, coiinsel for the petitioner. Slui N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UHDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONST3TOTION OFim>IA ORDER (21.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioncr ia the present pctitioa. is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Dy. Teacher on a fixed pay scalc of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after coxaptetion of probation, he was gianted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention offhe counsel for fhe petitioiier is that hc is entifled for regular pay scale wifh effeot frova the date of initial appouitinent aad his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by fhte Court aad also ffae judginent rendered by fhe M.P. State Adtimusteative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O^A. No. S745/SS> pBindhulecint y<«du& 56 Others Vs. State ofSS.P. & C hers)where lu it faas beea held fhat sitafflarly placed teachers are eutitled for regular pay scale fiom the date offheir uutial appointment. It is not disputed by bofh fhc parties fhat the xnatter was takea up by the State to the Apex Cozut but fhe appeal was also dismtesed by the Apex Coiurt upholding fhe decision offhe Tribtuial to the efiect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date offheir mitifil appoiatment In view of the above subinission laadc by Ae coun^l for the parties, the petitk>n is duposed of in the same tenus i.e. fhe petitioner is graated Uberty to make a representatton, if so adviaed, in fhe Ught of the aforesald judgxuent aud the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Anaexure P/2) and in tum, fhe concemed respoadent is dirccted to consider their case on its own inerits aad in its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on the same footing as per order passed by the State Adnunistrative Tribunal iu Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Suprenie Court in Special Leave Petition (CiviQ N0. 6892/93 by otdcr dated 03.01.95, the petitioaer may be entifled to same relief accordingly. It is expected Sxim. the State authoritics to pass suitable oider after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is uiade clear fhat fhls court has not expresscd any opmion on fhe inerits of the case and the authority concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritiisker Diwaker Judge