r\ -t', ,\ ^ &=1 :?~1 ^sl 2 < E v} 0 -cw „ w. 0 -c +- 0 -o s- n. o s- .0 .' &^. \^ '-.. ^ ^ \;1> ^D '•f- ^^ +- f "& y -s u ;E M U V) 3 CLi § & § t IL. M— ^*^ s~ 3 o =) S: -s- LHm ^ &," u ti t3 (S £-5 f...!iSiA!tait^S!(ttfel^^!^E'My!!2i^li&!UyiUU'l^^^ E- HIGH COURT OP CHHArTISOARH AT BSLASPUR 8B :HQN'BLEMK. JluyriCEPmTINKBK.IDIWAKBR W.P.tSJ.NO, 614S/201X PETITIONSSR Haldhar Prasad Sharma versus RESPONDBNTS State of C.G. & Others Sbri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF IWDIA OiU)BR (X7.10.20Xl( Grievance of the petitioner ia the present petition is fhat fbe petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scate of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two yeara aad after coiapletion of probatun, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entifled for regular pay scale witti e£fectfrom the date of uutial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court aad also the judgiaent rendcred by tfae M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274S/89 (Madhttfcant Yeidu & 56 Others Vs. State ofJS.P. & Others) where ia it has been beld tbat similarly placed teachers are entitied for regiilar pay scale frosi fhe date oftheir uiitial appoiutment. It is not disputed by bofh the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to tbe Apex Court but the appeal was also disnussed bythe Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision of fhc Tnbiinal to the effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fix>ia the date oftheir iaitial appoiatmeiit. In view of the above subinission inade by the counsel for the parties, tbe petition is disposed of ia the saine tenas ie. fhe petitioner is granted Uberty to niake a representation, if so adviaed, iu the l^ht of the aforesaid judgmcnt aad the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2 ) aad ia tura, the concemed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own inerits and iu its perspcctive. If the petitioner stands on ftie same foottug as pcr order passed by fhe State Adiainistrative Tribu.ual ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently coitfinued by the Suprenie CoTirt ia Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner ruay be entitled to same reUef accordingly. It is expected fixim fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of fhe facts. It is inade clear that this court has not expressed any opuuon on the nierits of the case and the authorily concemed would bc at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordaace wifb law. S(l/- PritinSier Diwaker . Judge