SIW6LE 9£Km IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIQN (S) No. /2011 PETITIONERS ^' l\..<",.^ ^•:"A^"**' ^'.^l.-^ ^.<:('€'r\^" ..-••fe^'\^;""' ^y^ ^'^ ^^^•" Parmanand Ram Yadav S/o Shri Daitari Ram Yadav aged about 56 Years, presently working as Head Master. at Govt. Primary School Mudagoan, Block ~ Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Augstus Tirkey S/o Late Shri Thomas Tirkey aged about 58 Years, presently working as Head Master at Govt. Primary School Block - Distt. Raigarh RESPONDENTS: Rupdega, Lailunga, (C.G.) VERSUS ^s,^-' State o.f Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2^The District Education Officer, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^. Block Education Officer Block -Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4.^Joint Director, Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /^^'\ fl% •I ibr^^^ I j ^sy HICrH COURT Qgl CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PR1TINKBR DIWAKBR PETITIONBRS RESPONDBNT8 W.P.ISJ.NO. 6625/2011 Pas-manajid Ram Yadav & Anoth.er versus State ofC.G. & Otliers Shri Anil Mourya, counsel fcr fhe petitionera. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (14.11.2011) Grievaace of the petitioners ia fhe present petition is fhat the petitioners were appoiated ia fhe year 1975 as Assistao-t Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year and fh.ereafter iii the year 1976 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period ofoue year, After completion of probation, ia tlie year 1977, fhey were granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Coutention of tlie counsel for the petitioners is that fhey are entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect froxa fhe date of initial appoiatment aad fheir case is squarely covered with number of decisious passed by this Court and also the Judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. JVOo 2745/89 (Ma^hukant Yadu Ss 56 Whers Vs. State of M.P. Ss Others) where iii it has been held Uiat siDiUarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froiD. fhe date of tlieir initial appoiiitanent, It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties tliat fhe inatter was talcen up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but tlie appea] was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiiig fhe decision of tlie Tribunal to tilie effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entiUed for regulai' pay scale froia fhe date of fheir initial appoiatmeut. .^y^^ ^&ax^. fC..:.^-:. ^ 1 '^^^ ,:; t. ... J J ...^ In view of tlie above subuiission niade by the counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia the same tenns i,e, tibie petitioners are granted Uberty to raake a representation, if so advised, ia the Ught offhe aforesaid judgiaent and fhe circular dated 5,1.2Q11 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own inerits aiid in its perspective. If fhe petitioners staad on fhe same footmg as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribuiial ia Madhiikant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreiae Cozu't in Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, the petitioners niay be entifled to saoie relief accordiugly. It is expected froin fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of th-e facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opiaion on fhe inerits of fh.e case and fhe aufbority concemed woidd be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge