F y . llhrflliilhruld^*^tA^^L^. {/\\ b i o o ^ ^ "F »^fal rt f- t0| <-ci y-t L. +" ^£ <0 .3 C U 0 s & ^ ^ va ^^ ^ w .. i i & ^ !' a 1 I ^ 1 i'? s T" ^ i -i —l-u ?- t.. i. a s £- 0 t(- SUB-' t- <+- y^l "%, +-i.oa- s- t- uc y>w u i-a s- s-Mo '4- s- e +- V) t- \ s o 3 § ^ u m &) 's. w g -Qs- -Qaz t-0 •5' '—' w i:' § \ y"'. r SB : HOB'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKBR W.P.tSJ.NO. 6187/2011 Bhagirathi Jatwar versus State ofC.G. & Othcrs Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOK OF INDIA ORDER (17.10.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner ia the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention offbe counsel for the petitioiier is that he is entifled for regular pay scale with effect froTn ttie date of uutial appoiatment aad his case is squarely covered wifh iiumber ofdecisions passed by this Court and also the judginen.t rendered by fhe M.P. State Admimstrative Tribimal, Jabalpur in O^A. No. 274S/89 ftSeulhv.kccitt YasSM. & 56 Others Vs. State efSI.P. & Others)wbere m it has been held fhat siuularly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from. ftie date of their mitial appoiatment. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties ftiat the luatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by ffae Apex Court upbolding fhe decision offhe Tribunal to the effect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale finin fhe date oftheir itutial appoiatment In view of the above subinission inade by the counsel for the pardes, the petition is disposed of ia the sanae tenas i.e. the petitioner is grauted Uberty to niake a representation. if so advised. in 1 (^ the Ught of the aforesaid judgment aad fhe circiilar dated 5.1.2011 (Armexure P/2 ) and ia turu, fhe concemed respondent is d.irected to consider his case on its own laerits and ia its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on the same footiug as per order passed by ttie State Admiaistrative Tribunal la Madhukaut Yadu (supra) and subsequently confiruied by the Supreine Court in Special Lcave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to saaie reUef accordingly. It is expected froiu the State aufhoriti.es to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is rnade clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and fhe aufhorily coacemed would be at. liberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordance wifh law. Pritinker Diwaker