T (2) i.G.l W.P. PETITIONERS ^e^ \vv .-•' •••?• ^•',-?';- '<^ \^^y ^\.^^-^'v--' ^.'·' ^ NO. ^ •^3^3 1 Sukul Ram Sidar, S/o Shri Vikrara Singh, aged about 57 year, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Priraary School Deogarh, Tamnar, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2.-' Maya Ram Sidar, S/o Shri Beido Singh Sidar, aged about 54 year, //<"'°' rwihyi'':. Govt. Primary School Shivpuri, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ^"^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Distric Education Officer Distt. Raigarh (C.< r ^s^ X^.HC-22 "s^^ ^ ^ST ''iWMI, 0Tll<H'IS. («IC11'ali< a.5. [£..^.\.1>'^.-' •<:!ra?ff3^T%---m"*"-~r-"-''-:;''"^'20fl (cKiclST' 311^1^1 K;-<i* sn^! ^TRRT^itg sn^TTOnwafer S.B.: HON'BLE JUSTICB MR. PRlVl&KER mWAK&K WfeN-WRJf ^ fs^ TfsRSR ^i'siPgHsn^r Shri Sonikatit Verma, couns^l for the petinoner. Sm.t. Sauta Ghai, P.L. for fb.e|State. Grievance of the petinoaers ^a the present petition is fhat ttie petitioners were appointed as |Dy. Teachers on a fixed pay scale ofRs. 100 for a period oftwo|years and afier completion of probation, t-hey were granted regiil^r pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe couasel fi}r ttie petitioners is ttiat fhey are entitted for regular pay scale witti effect froia the date of iuitial appointoient aad their c^se is squarely covered with nuinber of decisions passed b^' this Court and also judginent rendered by fh.e M.P. ^tate Adniinistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 2745/89 {2K|; Vs. State of M.P. 85 Othe?sj w} similarly placed teachers are enti^ aereia. it tias been hel( led for regular pay scale fi-oin the da.tc of fheir initial appouitinejtit. It is not disputed by both t^ie parties that fhe niatter was taken up by fh.e State to fhe Apex|Court but the appea! was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court i.jpholdiag fh.e decisioa of the Tribunal fo the effect tha.t the Tefech.ers/Assist.ant Teachers are entitled for reglllar pay scale 4-om. the date of their initial appoirttment In view of the above ftie parties, the petition is -petittoners cff&-^T^T^tcd-JiIi£ -h ission made bv the counsel for is^d ofia.the saine tenas i.e. the M^make a representation. if so 'S c'!ra-i E "^^''^'St + XI-HC-22 's^ '^w\v\^, ©TTl'yis.f'lciiyy 31T^T •qsrg? Niiiwi (fffirai "WT, 200 311^1 •qil R-ii.-t sn^i ^T^iicti ~^Q 1.1T SII^I ?^TW(rf??! advised, in fhe l^ht of the afores; dated 27.7.09 [Amiexure P/6) respoadent is directed to considei aad in its perspective. If fhe pi footmg as per order passed t>y fh in Madhukant Yadu (supra'l aad s Supreine Court in Special Leave oider dated 3.1.1995, the petitioi relief accordingly. It is expected froin fhe stal order after due scrutiny of fhe fad It is msde clear that fhis opiiuon on laerits of fhe case 4 would. be at liberty to decide tj! accordaace with law. <^l<4i<vi^1 l{PT<vff^ [^^ <f^-W.K' ^siPtprsn^f atu.d ia tum, the concemed their case on its own inerits fcitioners stand on the same State Admuiistrate Tribunal litoseQuentlv confirmed bv the itition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by ters niav be entitled to same autb-orities to pass suitablc tourt lias not expressed any ad tiie authoritv concemed .e representation stricfly ia Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge -L