si"S<e B^nph IN THE HON'BLE HI6M COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. /2011 PETETEONER ^.s:^c^-- ^y^^^ Chhattar Singh Paikra, S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Paikra, aged about 62 years, Retd. ,"1)....;• Headmaster at Primary School Shankamar, Block Pali, bistt. Korba (C.6.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Welfare bepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. -Raipur (G.6.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt.-Korba (C.6.) 3. Block Education Officer', Pali, Distt.-Korba (C.6.) WRIT PETETEON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTEONOF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICE PRITINKBR DIWAKER PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS W.P.tSi.NO. 6114/2011 Chhattar Siaah Paikra versus State of C.G. & Olliera Shri Anil Siagh Rajput, counsel for ffae petitioner. Sbri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy.A.G, for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB COMSTITUTIOK OFIMDIA ORDBR (14.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in thc preseat petition is that fhe petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after completion of probation, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for the petitionsr is fhat he is entiflcd for regular pay scale with effect from. ttie date of initial appoiatment and fheir case is squarely covered with number of decisioas passed by this Court aad also fhe judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tnbuaal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Vaahulcawt radu & 56 Others Vs. State ofSS-P. & Ofehcrs^where m it has been held fhat sirrularly placed teachers are entitted for regular pay scate froin the date of fh.eir iaitial appouitment. It is not disputed by both fhe parties fhat the naatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disiaissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitied for regular pay scale froin the date offheir JTiitial appointment. In view of fhe above submission inade by fhe counsel for fhe pardes, fhe petition is disposed of ia fhe sarne terms i.e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to niake a representation, if so advised, in -%^ the light of the aforesaid judgment aad the circalar dated 27.12.2008 (Axmexure P/4 ) and ia turu, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own merits and m. its perspective. If the petitioner stands on ftie same footing as per order passed by the State Administtatlve Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly coafirmed by fhe Suprenie Court ia Special Leave Petition. (Civil) N0, 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner inay be entifted to sarne reliefaccordiagly. It is expected froia the State aufhorities to pass stiitriile order after due scrutiny offhe facts. It is inade clear that fhis court bas not expressed aay opinion on the iiierits of the case and the authorily concerued would be at Uberty to decide the representation stricfly in accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker