WwwL‘ i7 Single Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.1=. (S) No.4?09 /2o11 1 PETITIONER: Abdul Sharif Khan S/o Shri Abdul Latif Khan aged about 56 years, presently working as Head Master v‘.’ at Govt. Boys Middle School, Semartal Block— Bilha Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: — Secretaly, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) l 2. The District Education Officer, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. “” The Block Education Officer Block— Bilha Distt, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. V Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District—Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . m“. “Wm‘M...mwmmum«\ WWWmMM.m%M\.w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOPJ’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DXW&KER W348] NO. 4706 [ 201 1 PETITIONER Abdul Sharif Khan State of C.G. 8c. Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(22’7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aggeatance: Shri B.L.Dambra, counsel for the pemioner‘ Shxi N. Naha Roy, P.L. for thc Sate. ORAL 0mm (1&08301 1) Gricvance of the petitioner in the present potitjon is that the: pay scale of petitioner was appointed as Doputy Teacher on a iixed Rs. 150 for a period of two ycars and after comple11'011 of probation, oovcrod. with number of decisions passod by by the M.P. Stars hukant he was gmnted regular pay ‘scale of Rs. log-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitionsr is mat he is ontitlod for regular pay scale with eEect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely this Court and also tho judgment rendcrod Administrativo Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Iliad Yadu 6; 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others} whore in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale ” &om the date of their iniiial appointment, \‘ It is not disputed by both the. parties that the matter was taken up by th that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. e State to the Apex Court but the appeal wae also dismissed ’l‘ribtmal to the effect by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the in View of the above submission made by the COunsel for thf; parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms Le. tha petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated ‘5. 1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own meiits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civn) NO..6892/93 by order dated 03.0195, the petitioner may be entitled to same nelief 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. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge K