cg/ ’31 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ram, aged abouT 58 years, Headmasler' (Primary) Govt Primary School, Anjokhurd, Block— Baikun’rhpur, Dish‘. Korea (6.9.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. SfaTe of Chha’r’risgarh Through :— The Secre‘rary, School Education Deparimen’r, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.&(L wmswo. (9%“ /2o1o PETITIONERS / 1. Chandrashekhar Pr'asad Sahu, S/o Dhar‘mji‘r Ram, aged abouf 61 years, Upper ‘ Division Teacher, Gov’r. Midle Schooi, Tenganee, Block— Baikun’rhpur‘, DisH. Korea (6.6.) / 2. Bhandari Ram Sahu, S/o La’re Ganga Ram Sahu, aged abouT 58 years, Upper Division Teacher, Gov‘r. Girls Middle School Udeli, Block Baikum‘hpur, Dish“. Korea (C.G.) 3. Triveni Ram, S/o LaTe Rama 2. Dis‘rricf EducaTion Officer, Baikunfhpur‘, Disf'r. Korea (C.G.) /3. Block Educa’rion Officer, Block Baikun’rhur', DisH. Korea (6.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. p 31m m azcbuwmég; Hgmco mmmw Shn' Anjl Singh Rajput, co sel for the petitioners. Shn‘ Vivek Shanna, P.L. for e State. Grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on a nXed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a p riod' of one year and after completion of probation, they wer granted mgular pay scale of rRs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel r the petitioners is that they are enu‘tled for Iegular pay scale with enect from the date of 1mtlal appointment and their c se is squarely covered with number of decisions passed b this Coult and also the judgment rendered by the MP. tate Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 2745/89 [ adhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) w erein it has been held that ' the date of their initial appointme t. It is not disputed by both e parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex urt but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Cami Eu holding the decision of the Tribunal to the edect that the Tea'ichers/ Assistant Teachexs are entitled for regular pay scale hb‘m the date of their Initial appointmen [um {fir}: t . .....................................m 200 ..............................................m ................................................ mmmma mw f€¢mrt *Wm In View of the above subm the panics, the petiu'on is dispos petitioners are granted liberty t‘ advised, in the light of the afoxe dated 27.12.2008 and in tuxn, dixected to consider their case pempective. If the petitioners s order passed by the State Ad Yadu (supra) and subsequen Court in Special Leave Petiu'o dated 3.1.1995, the petitioners accordingly. It is expected from the s order aiter due scrutiny of the fa ission made by the counsel for ed of in the same terms i.e. the 3 make a representation, if so mid judgment and the circular the Concerned mspondent is on its own merits and in its d on the same footing as per ' ‘strate Tribunal in Madhukant connrmed by the Supreme (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order may be entitled to same relief It is made clear that this opinion on merits of the case would be at liberty to decide accordance with law. te authorities to pass suitable ts. Court has not expressed any and the authority concerned the representation strictly in n Sci/- Pritinker Diwaker 3 Judge [W {hit {I