HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.1s3.No. 78201201 1 Shri Rahul Mishra, coun's.e1 for the petitioner. Shri Chandregh Shn'vastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (15.12.2011) Grievaxxce of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100— 150 and 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 effect from 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 effect 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 PETITIONER Shivdaval Yarlav Versus RESPONDENTs Sfata of Cbhattisgarh & Othm‘s @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the Circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/ 2) and in hum the concerned rcspondeni is directed to consider their case on its own msn‘ts and in its perspacfiva If the petitioner stands on the same footing as yer order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently counlmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.0195, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due soi‘utiny 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 1epresentation strictly in accordance with. law. Sd/— 1 s ‘i Pritinker Diwaker l Judge