‘ @§ gmggg §w¢m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NI? HO$ Of 2011 ’B/éisakhu Ram Belsar S/o Shri Jagdeo Ram Belsar, aged about 6O years, Principal, Govt. Hr. Sec. School Kannewada, Block Balod, Dist- Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. 'Ehe’State of Chhattisgath, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ / 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, //Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ” R HEGH CSURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE IVER. J11$TICE PRITINKER §1WAKER W.P.QSLNO. 7468! 2G1 1 PETITIONER Baisakhu Ram Beisar W V6TSUS POE€DENTS Stat€ of Chhattisgarh 8a Othsrs Shri S.K.Thomas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwal’it Smgh Thakur, Dy. AG. for th€ State. IT PETITION §NDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CGBISTITUTION QF INDIA ORDER (03.12.2011) Gn'evance of thc petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a f1xed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in. it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that. the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court-upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the TeachersjAssistant Teachers are entitled for regular pa scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the / . parties,’ the petition is disposed of in the same terms Le. the x petition r is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in RES WR i y @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated. 5.1.2011 (Annsxure P/ 1) and in turn, The concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative 'I‘ribuna1 in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation. strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker IJtwakar Judge