S'l"^®Bencb c T-) c--' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w PETITIONER ^.(S)No^ 6i2!fc OF 2011^ \^ ..<^ ^i^i /•"' cS'''' ,.-^'\^ .^''.^ ...<'^' ^' ^y <y y -<:-" <"'"&~. Purushottam Prasad Patel, S/o. late Shri Ayodhya Prasad Patel, aged about 56 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Tarkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1, State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILJ^PUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIONBR KESPONDENT8 W.P.fSi.NO. 6128/2011 Purushottam Prasad Patel versus State of C.O. & Otfaers Shri SoBakaat Verma, couasel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwaut Singh Thakur, Dy.A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION IWDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOW OF IND!A ORDER (14.10.2011J Grievaace of the petitioner ia fhe present petition is that fhe petitioner was appoiated as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after coinpletion of probation, he was grarited regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel &r ttie petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of iiutial appoiatment and their case is squarcly covered with niunber of decisions passed by this Court aad also fhe judgment rendered by the M.P. State Adnmustrative Tribuaal, Jabalpur in 0»d.No. 2745/89 (Saa.dhulcaitt 5'udu & 56 Others Ks. Stcte ofSS.P. & Othersfwb.ere ia it bas been held fhat sumlarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appouitoient. It is not disputed by both the parties that fhc laatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disinissed W the Apex Court upholding fhe decision of fhe Tribunal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fi-om the date of their iaitial appointaient. In view of the above subiaission niade by the counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of ia tiie same terms i.e. the petitioner is graated Uberty to make a represeutation, if so advised, m ^' fhe Ught of fhe aforesaid judgment aud fhe circiilar dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/5 ) aad in tum, the concemed respoiident is directed to consider their case on its own inerits aad ia its perspective. If the petitioner staads on fhe same footing as per order passed by fhe State Adininistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently conJirmed by the Supreine Court m- Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inay be entitled to same reUefaccordiagly. It is expected fixim fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutuiy ofthe facts, It is made clear fhat tfais court has not expressed aay opuuon on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at Uberty to decide the representation stricfly ui accordaace wifh law. Sd/- PritiHker Diwaker ie