^\3^).-^^ SisiQte a©nc?s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. ' ^, bu'T_/2011 PETITIONER ....< ^\v^ ,^f^y ^^y^ ^^p-",.<y ,<s^y^<^' 1 ^^' , y/.. Shiv Kurnar Sharma S/o Lalc Bhagdhar Prasad Sharm;i, ogecl about 55 years, I'rcscntly posleci ns Head Master Primary Schaot Bijatarai, Block Mungeli, District BilaspurC.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS w ^-ff" » ftay'^iB.lT.j , l.f/' State of C.G. througli the Kecretary School Erlucation Dc[)artm(:iit , DKS ^Rhnwan Raipur, C.C1. 2. The District Education Ori'icer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. c' 3. The Joint Director Trca.sui-y oncf Pension, Bilaspur, Dislricl Bilaspur- C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF J11E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDEB IN THE LIKENATURE ETC. w 7^ HI(SH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR (Hon. Wlr. .lustice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petitfon fSI No. 3607 of 2011 PETJTtQNER Shiv Kumar Sharma VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Rskesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. for the State. WRCT pErmoN UNDER ARTICU m V%^ »a Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as deputy teaeher vide order dated 01.12.1973 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and from 15.11.1979 Rs. 150 and after probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 545-925. 2. Contention of the counset for ths petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scate with effect from the date of initidl appointment and his case is squarely covered witti number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admlnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0«A. Wo. 2745/89 (Matthukant radu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others} wherein it has been held that similarty placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their inltial appointment. 3. It Is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up bv the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court uphotding the declsion ^ -I- of the Trlbunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appolntment. 4. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation; if so advised, in the Ijght of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) and in tum, the concerned respondent Is directed to consider his case on tts own merits 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 confirmed by the Supreme Court in Speciai Leave Petltion (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitted to same reiief accordingly. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority con^rned would be at liberty to decide the representatlon strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge