@ < a 3mm mm IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATYISEARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s) No. éQL /zo11 M/ é Suresh Kumar Tiwari, 5/0 Sri h Jawolc Pmsad Tiwari, aged rabou’r 54 years, Upper Divisoin teacher, Moderl G.H.S.S. Sak’ri, Block- Sak’ri, Distt-Jangir- j Champa (C.G.). ERSUS z L/Sfu’fe of Chhaffisgar'h, Secrefary, School Education Dearfmenf p, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur‘, Dis?‘r. - aiur‘ (6.6.) Officer, PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Through - The Educa‘rion l/R'p D 2. isTr‘icf X, Distt'Jonjgir-Champa C.G.) Block Educa’rion Officer, Sakfi DisffrJanjgir- 3. Block—Sakfi , Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIAM V OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.{S).NO. 6622/201 1 PETITIONER Sumsh Kumar 'l‘iwari versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 85 Others Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the: petitionmx Shri‘NNaha Roy, P.L. for ths State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 as Assistant Teacher on a hxed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 for a period of two years. After completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169~ 300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with e§cct &om the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the en‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 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 light of the aforesaid judgmcnt and fhe circular dated 5.1.201]. (Annexure P/4 ) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its 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 conhrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the peh'h‘oner may he entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation. strictly in accordance with law. i Sci/- i 1 Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge