SINGLE 3ENEH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C .6.) w.P. s No. €Q ‘0 /2o11 / PETITIONER : Laxmi Prasad Kashyap, Aged about WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$TITUION OF INDIA 54 years, S/o Shri Ban‘shi Lal ”n “f Kashyap, Head Mas’rer‘, Governmenf 6M\ Primary School, Juna Shahar, Block Kofa, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) yyb VERSUS RESPONDENTs : 1. S’ra‘re of Chhah‘isgarh Through Secretary, School Educm‘ion Deportmenf D.K.$. Bhowan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Direc‘ror Public Insfruc’rions Raipur (C.G.) 3. Dis’rric‘r Educafion Officer, Bilaspur, Disiricf—Bilaspur (C.G.) 4./ Block Educafion Officer Ko’ro, Disfric'r- Bilaspur (6.6.) 5/ Join? Direc’ror, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) HIGH COUK!‘ OF CHHATTIW AT BILASPUR W.P.]Q.IIO. 54601 201 1 PETI’I‘IOIER Laxmi Prasad Kashyap RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 8r, Others Shn' K.S.Pawar, counsel for the pau'tioncr. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakux, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TKE CONSTITUTION OF INQIA ORDER (16.09301 1) Gxicvance of the petiu‘oncr in the present petition is that me peu‘tioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Nxed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 for a period of two yeaxs and after compktion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. nor is that m is eniitled V Contention of the counsel for the petiiio for mgulai' pay scale with en‘ect mm the date of ini1ia1 appointment d with number of decioions passed by rendered by the M.P. State and his case is squarely covem l this Court and also the judgnent Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 2745/89 Wuhan Yaau a; 56 other: Vs. state on”. at othersmhem in it has been held that similaxly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale n‘om the date of their initial appointnent. 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 I Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale nom the date of their mmal appointment. that the Teachers In view of the above submission made by the oounsel for the ‘ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the if so advised, in pardes, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a repmsentation, @ the light of the afomsaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspecu've. If the petitioner stands on the same foou'ng as per onier passed by the State Administxative Tribnnal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confinned by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Pen‘tion (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by cider dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected nom the State authorities m pass suitable ordm after due scmh'ny 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 representan'on strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge