‘ ! w WL IN THE HIGH COURT OF ‘CHHATTIS(E}ARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) PETITIONERz‘ ‘v¢\sr~~.c«wv : T or I I. WRIT PETITION (S) Nozq zgs /201 1. ‘ 1 1 Satyanaraya’n Glupta, son of Jaitram / l Gupta, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Kotasura, Block§Pussour, Distn'ct Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus - Respondents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Education Department, D K S Bhawan, Raipur Chhattlsgarh 2. D1str1ct Education Officer D1str1ct Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director! Treasury and Accounts, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. \e\\)}, \\ 03/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF IND I~ C IA <93 HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARHfAT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PmTINKER DIWAKER w.p4s;.no. 2429/2011 Satyanalayan Gupta VCISIIS REsPONDENTS State of C.G. & Others PETITIONER Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petiu'oner. Shn' N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the Statg. ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (28.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a oxed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after completion of probau'on, 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 eh‘ect from the date of m1t1a1 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 0.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. state ofMJ’. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hom 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 mm 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 t,\ ?\ the light of th€ afomsaid judgment and the c1rcular damd 05.01201 1 (Annexure P/ 2) and in turn, the concerned} mspondent is dixected to consider their case on its own merits aadi in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as iper order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be 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. r, , Kr Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar t Judge