5 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No...y?.2^3.....2011 PETITIONER ^s^ i.^.-'-^c^"' ..-••" ^y^ RESPONDENTS /"' (1) (2) Jagannath Singh Armo S/o Shri Shiv Sahay Singh Armo Aged 55 Years, Head Master Primary School Bodalpara Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. versus Jagaimath Singb Armo Stat.e of Chliattisgara Ofhers Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for tae petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, P.L. for tbe State. (02.12.20111 Grievauce of the petitioner in fhe present petition is that the petition.er was itiitially appoiated as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 aad after conipletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh efFect from. the date of iuitial appouitment and his case is squarely covered w~ith nuinber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also tb.e judguient rendered by fhe M.P. State Administrativc Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. No. 274S/89 pffedhufeant Yesdu. & 56 Others Vs. Stctte oflK.P. & Others) where in it has been held fh.at simUarly pla.ced teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from fhe date of their initial appointiuent. It is not disputed by bofh. fhe parties that the inatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but ffae appeal was also disinissed by tfae Apex Coiu-t upholdiug the decision of the Tribuaal to tlie effect that fhe Te'achers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froia tbe date of their irdtial appointment. In view of fhe above subniission made bv fhe counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of iu tbe same tenas i.e. the petitioneris granted Uberty to niake a representation, ifso advised, in the light oftlie aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Anaexure P/5) and ia tura, the concerued respondent is directed to 1 'vs». 1 I, 7^ S ''k. &> ~It .<<? E^jr,^.''^.!" ;'tl»-..-^-<<<t. consider his case on its own inerits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footuig as per order passed by the State Admmistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confirmed by fhe Suprenie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner niay be entifled to sanie retief accordiiigly. It is expected froai the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutinv ofthe facts. It is niade clear fhat this court has not expressed any opinion on fhe nierits of fhe case and the aiifhorily conceraed wouJd be at liberty to decide the i^presentation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge