^l^ JN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. /2011 PETITIONER / Murari Lal Rajput S/o Jhingut Ram Rajput, aged about 58 years, Occupation Service, posted as Head Master, Prim.ary School Vicharpur, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS /l. State of G.G. through the Secretary School Education Department, DKS J_ —^ 2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. \v',"^ ^^ .^yy ^^--/v^'..-•"", ^"' ..•••" ^^^ ^y..-y ^ ^-3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^- <,'? ..•r" ^^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE . NATURE QF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. c f-\ l'?1e»?.'E?1 HS'^ .¥¥'r<&JTfcTrti?*i?¥;???rT%TS21'icl.i r^r'ssr^ sfs^i > dh^i'S Syi^Si fff&S^i ^USS lA^/jSS; ^''F^A JI,A£'i&X^EfI^. £-'*,IWJ'S-?^.^ W.P.tSl.NO. 49Q2/-2011 Murari Lal Rainut versus State ol'C.G. & Oihers SIiri. Rafeesh Pao.dey, counse] for the petitioner. Shri praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for tte State. WRIT PBTITIOI? USDER ARTICLE 326 OF CONSTITCTION' »FII (26.08.231 It Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petition is that rhe peutioner was appomted as Deputy Teacher o'a a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of te'o yeaj-s snd after compfction. of probation, he was graQted reg-tilar pay scale ofRs. 545-925. Contention of fhe couiisel for fhe petitioner is tl'iat he is entitled for reguiar pay scale wi.th eSect froin tlie dste of mitial apporotaient aari his case is squarely covered wita nuiaber ofdecisions passed 'by this Court and also the judgm.ent rendered by flie M.P. State Adiainists-ative Tiibiinal, Jabatpm' i.n O.A. Xo. 274S/89 {XtStShu.'ieew.t 7a3.tt & 56 Others Vs. Stctte ofM.P. & Others) w1as.re m it flss beea held fhat sunilaTly placed teachei-s are enti.tled fbr regiilar pay scale froin tlie date of tlieir iDitiat appom.tineiLt. It is not disputed by bota fb.e psrties that fhe inatter vvas tal'en up by the Sta.tc to the Apex Court but tlie appesl was slso disinissed lay the Apex Court upholding ff.ie decisioii ofttie Tribuual to the effect that the Teacliers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for iegiaj.ar pay scaJe froni the date of their iaitial aopointinent. In view of the above parties, thc petition is dis^ uetitioner is gTarited Uberty to by the counsel of in &e same tenas i.e. the a rcpresentation, if 90 advised, in ^..^.^.^za^: ^k^sy <l^ the light o.f fhe aforesaid judginent siid tlie circvilar dated 5.1.2011 (An.QCXiire P/2) and in taiTi, the concemed respondent is diircted to consider tlieir case on. its own inerits siid ia its oerspective. If tbe petitioner stands on the saine footiag as per order passed by tlie State AdiiiiDists-ative. Tribuual, in Madhitkaut Yadu (supraj and siibsequenlly confinaed by tbe Supreaie Court in Special I^eave Petition (CivTlt N0. 6892,'93 by order dated 03.01.95, the peti-doner laay be ea.titted to saTue relief accordingly. It is expected frora. tiie State authorities to pass suitabie order after due scrutiny offhe facts. It is inade clear that this court has not expressed ?<ny opijiion on tlie nierits of fhe case and the authoritv concem-ed would be at liberh' to decide fhe reoreseatation strictiv iu accordance with law. Sd/- ! Pritinker Diwaker -^ Judge '