IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.^fi /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: -..:••" ^ ^"^^')' -^""" -^^'^' ,\zy ^"^•^ ^ Poshan Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Sahu aged about 56 Years occupation Head Master Govt. Middle School Amgaon, Block-Pali Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) Comraissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur District Raipur Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Qistt. Korba (C.G.) /\. Joint Director Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ y "WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f7- HIGH C»URTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BIUUSPUR 8B : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RESPONDBNTS W.P.jSt.NO. 5818/2011 Poshan Prasad Sahu versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Ashwini Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L, for fheState. WRIT PBTITIOM UNDBR AJRTICLE 226 OB* THB CONSTrTUTION OFBIDIA ORDBR (28.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner ia the present petition M fhat fhe petitloner was appoiated as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aud after coinpletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofttie counsel for the petitioner te that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of mitial appouitment and bis case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court aad also fhe judginent rendered by tfae M.P. State Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 274S/89 pSctdhukeutt Tctelu & 56 eMiers Vs. Stdte ofSSS.P. & Others^where ia it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers axe entifled for regular pay scale froia fhe da.te of their initial appoiataient It is not disputed by both fhe parties that. fhe inatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disiaissed by the Apex Court upholdiug the decision of flie Tribuaal to the cfFect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froin the date of fheir iaitial appointinent. In view of fhe above subaussion inade by the couasel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is graated liberty to make a rcpresentation, if so advteed, in -"\ .^' t/ the light ofthe aforesaid judgment and the circTiiar dated 27.12.08 (Aruiexure P/2) and in tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider ttieir case on its own merits and in its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on the sacae footing as per order passed by tlie State Administrative Tribiuial in Madhukaat Yadu (supral aad subsequeatiy confirraed by the Supreine Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the pctitioner may be entitled to same reUefaccordingly. It is expected fi-om fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy of the facts. It is inade clear that ttus court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of fhe case and the authority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation sfiicfly ia accordaacewitih. law. Sd/- PritiBlter Diwaker