G) $§$§€ELE %E%‘€$"“% IN THE HON‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ‘ (,/ AT BILASPUR 1 w.P. s No. (3L 6 /201.o PETITIONERs f may Pmkash Verma, 5/0 Late Shri Jaidayal VEr‘ma, aged abouf 6O years, Head MasTer', Lvg‘wp Gov’r. Primary School Bardiya, V) Block Baikunthpur‘, DisH. v“ Korea (C.G.) 2‘8 Shyam Lal Jaiswal, S/o La’re Sadhu Sao J'aiswal, aged about 60 year's, Head Masfer‘, Govt Boys Primary School Kasar'a, Block Baikun‘rhpur', Disl‘l’. 'Kr‘oea (6.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1.?” STa‘re of Chha‘l’fisgar‘h Through :- The Secretary, School Educm‘ion Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.') 2. District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Kore (6.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE l c0NsTITUTI0N‘o‘F INDIA. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. ( a WWW WWW \ SB : HON"ELE IVER. JUST§CE PMTENKER DIWAKER $9.1 1.2910 Shn’ Ajit Singh, PL. for ma State. Grievance of fhe petitionsrs the petitioners were appointséi as pay sca§€ of RS. 100-159 for a completicm of probation, they we; Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel . Tor the petiticners is that they with effect from the date of are entitied for regular pay scale initial appointment axld their c‘ number of decisions passed i judgment rendered by the MP. éhukant Yada as 56 Othezs erein it has been held that ' led for regular pay scale from t Shxi Ami} Singh Rajpui, couLsel fer the. petitionere. in the preeem, petitiori is ihai Assistanf. Teachers an a fixed perioéi of two years and after 'e graiited mguiar pay scale of ase is squaxeiy covered with y this Court 331d also the State Administrative Tribunal, a h g Jabaipur in 0.A. Not 2745j89 Vs. State of ME. 85 Others) similarly placed teachers are en the date of their initial appointme 1t is not disputetl by both taken up by the State to the Ape aismissed by the Apex Court Tribunal to the effect that the Te entitled for regular pay scale r1 gnpnin r tm en t parties that the matter was Court but the appeal was also pholding the decision of the chers] Assistant Teachers are m the date of their initial Ve W En§?w§5g%5 lak§%$%Q anteW (Wu) tmwmF&aa@v W6“%/é%0 mwfaw wmm Wuma‘%wm %a1’1=cmm En View of the above submiJssion mada by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. ihe petitioners are granted liberty tc make a representatioe, if so acivised, in the light of the afores aid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.2098 and in tum} on its own merits anti in its perspective. If the petitioners stand on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal in Macihukant Yadu’ £supra} and subsequently directeé to consider their case , the concerned reseondenvt is confmed ‘by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1995, the petitioners accordin gly. 1t is expected from the state authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made dear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on men'ts of the case and the authority concerned would be at. liberty to (iecide accordance with law. Pritinker Diwaker Judge nay be entitleti to same relief the representation strictly in A Sd/- (n. , 7.7