$3 $§NGLE aENcH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT i BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. (s) No. 6H59 /2o11 /V Kunj Ram Kashyap, Aged abouf 61 years, S/o Shri‘Chandulal Kushyap, Head Masfer, Governmen‘r Primary School, Kar'm, Block Kofa, Districf- Bilaspur‘ (6.6.) PETITIONER VERSUS REsPONDENTS : 1. Sfa‘l‘e of Chhaf'risgar'h Through Secretary, School Educa‘rion Deparlmen’r D‘K.5. Bhowan, Ralpur‘ (6.6.) The Direc‘l‘or‘ Public Insl‘r‘ucfions Raipur (C.G.) Dislricl’ Educa’rion Officer, Bilaspur‘, Disfrict—Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Ko’ra, Dis’rricf- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5f Joinf Director, Treasury, Accounf Pension, Bilaspur, (6.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ’ HIGH COUKI‘ OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILABPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKRR DIWAKER W.P.(S!.N0. 5459/201 1 Kunj Ram Kashyap State of C.G. 6s Othcts Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri ¥ashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ORDER (16.09.2011) Grievance of the petiu'oner in the pmscnt petition is that the peu'u'oner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Med pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 for a period of two years and alter complcu'on of probation, he was gmnted mgular pay scale ofRs. 169-300.- Contenu'on of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is enu’tled for regular pay scale with eh‘ect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Coult and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. state ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are enu‘tled for regular pay scale hom the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the paitn's that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eh‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for Iegular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. ln view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petin'on is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is gianted liberty to make a mpresentation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cilcular dated 5.1.2011 (Anncxure P] 2) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its pcmpcctive. If the pen'u‘oner stands on the same footing as per onier passed by the State Adminisuaiive Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Peu‘tion (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by cider dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected mm 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. i Sd/— ”"1 Pritinker Diwaker Judge