@ r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No3 j^0f2011 PETITIONER ^^- '"•s^-^^] <?'(.&'*"'. ..••""\^ ..^"" RESPONDENTS u w ,, ^ ^i^m ^ w^^i-^^^ ^ Umesh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Ganesh Sungh Thakur, aged about 55 years, Lecturer, Govt. Hr. Sec. School Biretara, Block Balod, Dist- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA COURT OF CHHATTISCSARH AT BiLASPUR SB : HON?BLB MR. W.P.ISi.NO. 7736^2011 PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNTs Versus Umesh Siagh Thakur State of Chlia.ttisga.di & Others Shri S.K.Thonias, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chan.dresh SIuwastava, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ORDER 116.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioxier iii the present petition is that tlie petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher (Traiaee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aiid after coiiipletioii of probation, he was graiited regulai' pay scale ofRs. 169-300, Contention of tlie coiinsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date /ofinitial appointnient and his case is squarely covered with nuraber of decisions passed by tliis Court. and also fhe jiidgnient rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpiu' m O.A. N^ 2745/89 (Madhukant Yssdu & S6 Others Vs. State Q/M.P. Sa Whers) where m it has been held tlist similariy placed teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale froiR fhe date of their mitial appOHitment. It is not disputed by botli the paities Uiat tlie niatter was takeu up ~by the State to the Apex Court but tlie appeal was also dismisse.d l~)y the Apex Court upholding fhe decision of the Tribunal to the effect that tlie Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni the date of tlieii' niitial appoi3itm.eut. In view of the above subraission iiiade bv the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of iu tlie saine terois i.e. tlie petitioner is graated Mberty to make a representation, if so advised, iii ^'~\. r':' \ '^^5E^S^'' ^ tlie Mght of the aforesaid judginent and the crrcular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) aiid ia tuni, the concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case ou its own merits aiid ra its perspective. If the petitioner staiids on the same footiag as per order passed by the State Adniinistrative Tribiiiial in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aiid siibsequently confirmed by the Siiprexiie Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0, 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner may be entitled to same reMef accordiiigly. It is expected froni the State aiitliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is niade clear tliat fhis court has not expressed any opinion on tlie nierits of tlie case aad the autliori'ty concemed would be at liberty to decide tihe representation stdctly m accordaiice with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge