c^>. Slngteamtti IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (Sl NO^N^-72011. PETITIONER: Mangleshwar Ram, son of Hareel Sai, aged about 36 years, working as Head Master, Pahadi Korwa Ashrani Shala, Govindpur, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Respondents ...^ ^••••^..••••: ^^'x^ ^ '..-•w-'' ..-^ ^•^.^ ^ .< ,<y°><r< ^:^'/' 'y versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretaiy Tribal Welfare Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. ^ Block Education Officer, Batouli, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5/ Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- ^^ss i^ .n MIGH COUIITOF CMMATTKSGARH AT BILASPUil (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinlcer Diwalcer) Writ Petgfcion fS^ N©.4142 of2011 PETITIONER Mangleshwar Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhgttlsgarh anil ©there ^ ^irl Harish Khuntiya/ counsel for the p^tjti@ner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L forthe State. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTXCUE 226 OPTHt Cy^&Vii U riON OF 2NDIA QA&J6JS (01.08.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present pefeition is that the petltioner was appointed as Assistant teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 1200 and after successfully oonpteting ttie probation period, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Contentlon of the counset for th@ p^titioner ts that tw ts entitled for regular pay scate with effect from the elate of Inttial appointment and his case (s squarely covered wlth number of dectsions passed by this Court and ateo the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admintstrative Tnbunal, Jabalpur In OJI. No. 2^45/89 (Maelhukant Ya^lu & SQ Otfiers Vs» State of M.P. <8fe Otfie/s) wheretn it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitledfor regylar pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 3. It ls not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appe^ was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the deelsion of the Trlbunal to the effect that the TeM:h®rs/A$si^:ant l^ -SL- Teachers are entitled for regular pay scate from the date of their jnltial appointment. 4. In view of the above submission ma^e l?y tl^ coumel for the partles, the petition Is di^os^l of in the same terms i.e, the petitioner is granted Itbert^ to make a represenNtion, if so advised, In the tight of the aforesatd judgment and the circular dated 27.12,2008 (Annexure P-^) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to conslder his case on its own merlts and in its perspective. If the petittooer ^ancts on the same footing as per order passect by the State Admtnistrative Tribunal tn Maclhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently conflrmed by the Supreme Court in Siecfal Leav6 Petition (Ch/il) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entltled to same relief accoretingly. 5. It ls expected from the State authorltles to p^s siiiitaMe order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that this court has not e&cpressed any opinlon on the merits of the case and the authwitty cQQGemed would be at liberty to decide the representatlon stricyy in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge