RESPONEEN'I'S C^ t^-. IN THEHIGHGOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR W. P.(StNo.^-©<?>2—bF2bld; Shyam;Lal Nagyanshi, Son ofla.teShriEatelRain ^agvaiishi,']age(|.|||^o|ittJ ^Hea-clyMa|s1;^g| ;i]3Si|g|^®B8®fc@i,s;f:j'iG|||^fflfl^B ;(c;ti|^?®^-.,...gi^^^^^ VERS^iS ^. .Stafe.Qf'Cl'iKattisgaJFh,.,''^^'^'^ Thr<nigh':^The\Se(:^far^^^^;%, ^TriKal,Welfarg;I^s|a||fmW|,^^ ^E^.S,,BEa'CT^|®|[@UB:J^S:(3/.|)- .&§sis'Eaiit R^lB:£er;:'I%stnct!K^lt^S{(2«:,©;); ^^^.'•.•,;iBlH|^^d|lic&fi8rE|<3£ficeryR^ i ]3ui'@(.ikc)netai,,J3tStrict^Kguffikerj; ,,,;^,(e^.)i.,,i,.:^f:;:,:.^^r^j^^^ •f^. ^-.^Treasury.lQfficer, • ,• ^::';",'''• •::.;:f Treasur^^eeount &P6nSitprt,T^ s Kanker, DistnctiKanker (C^^^ WMtJPE¥!TBQNgUNDE^ARTI<3l^226<iFSTMEj coffs^fsw^em^o^mS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M 11!:^ 3'sr •<iwwti, wiSww. fqcii'yy STI^T VRK •^.....h.5::ff^hl^:~l'a'y-l^ "^I. znb 'fq^ET' sn^i^i f^N'an^i sn'im ^lfta *W\vl^ WWJ^ feid) <R|(<.|( ^SlPOT 311^1 siT^iTOnwgftg SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICB PSITIS 03.12.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel 'or the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the Orievance of the petitioner in| the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistanjt Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year and jafter compleUon of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. |169-300. Contention of the counsel entitled for regular pay scale witl appointment and his case is sqi decisions passed by this Court and M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, (Madhukant Yadu & S6 Others Vs. it has been held that simflarly pla< pay scale from the date of their initiq )r the petitioner is that he is effect from the date of initial larely covered with number of Iso thejudgment rendered by the Jabalpur in OA No. 2746/89 State ofM.P. & OUien) wherein teachers are entitled for regular appointment. It is not disputed by both thejparties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court 1|)ut the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding fhe d^cision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teaclfiers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial ajipointment. In view of the above suhmi^sion made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of i^i the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a repres^ntation, if so advised, in the Ught of the aforesaid judgment and| the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/6) and in tum, the c^incemed respondent is direeted to consider their case on its own m^rits and in its perspective. If the ''fl^ Wafi -HC-22 'TccT -yitiiciq, ^lyiii. hwi'yy sn^?r Tf^sf; ^M<fe.:l...&:3^2/^ 'M 2B *<11p(r Sh*<|ch ^V^t' an^T ^n ftRwaniOT 5b+li<T> ^[^fl sn^rwiWHltd petitioner stands on the same footing Administrate Tribunal in Madhukant confirmed by the Supreme Court in S 6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1995, th same relief accordingly. ^ per order passed by the State ^adu (supra) and subsequently tiecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. petitioner may be entitled to It is expected from the state aujthorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this Courti on merits of the case and the authoritl to dwide the representation strictly in 'nlllCTll't 11*«li(4fest <fa|tdl< ^? SlPOT SIf^I has not expresaed any opinion concemed would be at liberty accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge f-:"^ '^"f7-'^ lil 1