,-^. a f [00 L- 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^60 OF 2011. PETITIONER 'l,-^ '..^?.. f^^ • l^ ^"/ '^ RESPONDENTS Ratnu Ram Dhruw, S/o. Shri Dau lal Dhruw, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Kanharpuri, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS ^: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS©ARHAT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RESPQNDBNTs W.P.tSLHO. 6960/2011 Ratnu Ram Dhniv versiis State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Sonikan-t Verma, counsel for the petltioaer, ShriN.NahaRoy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDSA ORDER P4.11.2011) Gnevaace of fhe petitioner ia the present petition is that the petitiouer was appoiated as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100 aad after conxpletion of probation, he was graated regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is eutitied for regular pay scale wifli effect from the date of mitial appomtment aad his case is squarely covered with nuaiber of decisions passed by fh.is Coiirt and also fhe judginent rendered by fhe M.P. State AdmiEustrative Tribiinal, Jabalpur m 0»A* No» 2745/89 fMe^&huk.cmt Ycsdu Ss56 Cfthers Vs» SSate ^fSS.P. Ss Others^ where ia it has beeii held that similariy placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froin the date of fheir niitial appomtaient. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties that the inatter vvas takeu up by fhe State to tiie Apex Court but the appeal wa.s also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision of the Tribunal to the effect fliat fhe Teachers/Assistarit Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from. fhe date of fhen* iiiitial appoiataient. In view of the above subniission inade by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of io. fbe saine terms i,e, the petitioner is graiited Uberty to make a rcpresentation, if so advised, m /:^ f a ^; ^\ f .ff ^^ ^ the light of the aforesaid judgment aad tilie circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) aad in. tuni, tlie conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own nierits and in. its perspective. If the petitioner stands on ftie saine footing as per order passed by the State Adniuiistrative Tribunal ia Madhukaat Yadu (siipra) aod subsequenfly confiraied by the Supreme Co^irt ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner raay be entitied to saaie relief accordiiigly. It is expected from fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiny ofthe facts. It is made clear fhat this court has not expressed aay opiaion on the nierits of the case and fhe authority concemed woiild be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordaace witih law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge