1 SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTtSeARH AT BILASPUR (C.Q.} W.P. (S) N0. <S'^5 /2011 PETrTCONER RESPONDENTS : ..•""".^ ,^0-;^= ^>^ll'..<-- '^••••""" ^v 7^'^\ ^^' ::.,^* s:^-^-y Chandrika Prasad Vastrakar, Aged about 57 years, S/o Late Shri Budhram Vasrakar, Lectrure, Government Higher Secondary Schoo!, Baima Nagoi, Block Bilha, District-Biiaspur (C.6.) VERSUS ./-"" 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education DepQrtment D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (,C.G.) 2. The Director Pubiic Instructions Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Biiaspur, District-BiIaspur (C.G.) 4. -^ BSock Education Officer Koni, bistrict- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Biiaspur, (C.G.) 6. The Principle Government Higher Secondary School Baima Nagoi, Biiha Distt. Biiaspur (C.6.) z- (5 WRIT PETETEON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUION OF INDIA .\ © HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSTICB PRITIHKBR DIWAKER W.P.CSl.NO. 564^/2011 PBTITIONBR RB8PONDBNTS -r^ versus Chandrika Pxasad Vastralcar State ofC.G. e& Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitionen Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. OF THB CONSTITUTION WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB OF I21DIA ORDBR (22.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner m fhe preaent petition is fhat fhe petitioner was appointed as Dy, Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after completton of probation, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs, 169-300, Contention of tiie coinisel for fhe petitioner m fbat he is aitifled for regular pay scale wifh eflTect from fhe date of iaitial appoiatment aad his case is squarely covered wifh number of decisions passed by fhis Court aod also fhe judgment rendered by Itie M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpiu- m O^A* JW». 274S/Q9 fSSfulhulean.t Yeuiu & 56 Whers Vs. State ojTM-P^ <& Whers/where m it has been held fhat sioiUarly placed teachers are entifled for regiilar pay scale from fhe date oftlieir mitial appomtooaent, It is not disputed by both fhe parties Itiat the matter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court.upbolding fhe decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale from fhe date oftheir mitial appoiatoient In view of the above submissicm made by the counsel for fhe pardes, fhe petition is disposed of iii fhe same terms i,e. fhe petitioner is graated Uberty to make a representetion, tfso advised, in :\ v^^^ ^^; ^>' the light of fhe aforesaid judgment aad fhe circular dated 5,1.2011 (Annexure P/2) and in tam, fhe concenied respo^ideBt is directed to consider fheir case on ite own inerits and in its perspective, If fhe petitioner staads on the same footmg as per order passed by tlie State Administorative Tnbuxial m Madhukant Yadu (stiprai aad subsequenfly coitGbrmed by fhe Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner may be entitled to same reUefaccordiagly- It is expected frora fhe Btate authorities to pass stdteble order after due scrutiny offhe facts, It is made clear fhat fhis court has xiot expressed aiiy opidioa on tfae inerits of fhe case and fhe aufhorily conceraed would be at liberty to decide tihie representation atricfly ia accordaiice wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge