^L, j' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (S) N0. '7'M /2011 PETmONER ^}--"..- > ?>• .s^ \ ^•'•""^ ^^ ^ ....-^ ^^'•' RESPONbENTS : 1. 4. Kunwar Pal Singh , aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Kewal Singh, Lecture, Government Higher Secondary School Teganmada, Block Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education bepartment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint birector, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.6.) The Principle, Government Higher Secondary School, Teganmada, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. £ WRITPETITtON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 1 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. J'USTICB DIWAKBR -s W.P4S1.NO. 7741/2011 PETITIONBR RESPONDBNTs Versus Kunwar Pal SmRh Stale of Chliattisgai-h & Oth.ers Shri K.S.Pawai^ counsel. for the pe.titioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRlT^ETITIONUNDBR,ARTSCLE,226_OrTHB,COIST!TUTION OFJNDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Grievaiice of the petitiouer in. flie present petition is fliat the petitioner was appointed as Assistaxit Teacher/Train.ee on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aiid alter completion of probation, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Coiitentiou of tlie counsel for fhe petitioner is tliat he is entifled for regiilar pay scale withi effect froni tlie date of iiiitial appointiTient aiid his case. is squarely covercd wifh num.ber of decisions passed by this Court and also tiie judgment rendex'ed by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur .in O.A. N^. 274S/89 (M^dhukant rcgda & S6 Otfeers F's< State ofMP. & Others^where in. it ha.s been held that siniilarly placed teachers are entitled for regxilar pay scale froni tb-e date of th.eir itiitial appoio.tciexit. It. is not disputed by bofh tlie parties that tlie raatter was talseii up by the Sta-te to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by tlie Apex Court iipholding flie decisiou of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regTilar pay scale froBi fhe date of their ioitial appoin.tm.en.t. Iii view of the above subiiiissiou inade by the coiinsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of ui the sanie temis i,e. the petitioner is graiited liberty to niake a represeiitation, if so advised, m y.r "% g^.^-vl ^"•-^/ fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgnient aiid the circular dated 5,1.2011 (Annexure P/2) and ni tura, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own m-erits aad in its perspective. If tlie petitioiier stands on ttie same footing as per order passed by tlie State Admmistrative Tribmial in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly coBfirmed by tih.e Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil)NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner inay be entiUed to saiae reUef accordiogly. It is expected frora the State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiay ofthe facts. It is niade clear that this court ha.s iiot expressed aay op:biion on the nierits of the case aiid the autliority conceraed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly iii accordao.ee witli law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge