1 Singfe^ench ^ .\Q° '' ^ ^^3>^ /2Qli ,^s)>^-~ \><^- •''-^.••' .•••~ ^€^ ,'s' .-••'', ^y.-^ A'0' r'ty ..{,•••"' iS" ^' i^f i,.» ?'^ n :v> y,i '' -••* • f.s y~a 'V' ^'^y .--<--^' /' / ^* Prasad Pathak, Aged about years, S/o Shri Harishchandra ur, Block Kota, District- .5. Education Officer, Biiaspur, -Biiaspur (C.6.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account 77^1 '•A'd'SF- IV) -fl 5 "te'SSSi 8 S^-*°"<«| fil ' ,s A-f HIGH CXtIIRT OF CHHA'FTlSGASSi. AT BIlASPim SB : HON'BI^ MR^JUS'tlCB^nRITlNKBRDTWAKER W.P.fSI.IK). 5734/2011 PBTITIOMBR Vishnu Prasad Pathak versus RBSPOMDBNTS State ofC.G. & Otfaers Shri K.S.Pawar, coiuisel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICl®226 OP THB COMSTITOTIOM OF INDtA (26.09.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner ia the present petitioa is Ishat the petitioner was appointed as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after completioa of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention oftbe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is cntittai for regular pay scale with eflEect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with aiunber of decisions passed by this Court aud also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmista-ative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0«A.No. 2745/89 (SSsvOhMktw.t Ralu Ss S6 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others/where ia it has been held tbat siDulariy placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale fiona fhe date offheir iuitial appointnient. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat thc matter was taken up by fhe ,State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed \ . • • • by the Apcx Court upholding the decision offhe Tribimal to flie effect that the Teacheis/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regiailar pay scale Q-om. the date of their iiutial appointmeut. In view of fhe above subnussion inade by tte counsel for ttie parties, the petition is disposed of io. fhe saaie terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to niake a representation, if a> advised, ia fli^i[i!BB: fhe I%ht of fhe aforesaid judgment and fhe ciroular dated 5.1.2011 (Aunexure P/2) and in turu, fhe couceraed respondent is diTected to consider fheir case on its own nierits aad ia its perspectave. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Trib-imal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequentiy confirmed by fh.e Supreme Court ia Special Leawc Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner may be entifled to sanie reUefaccordiagly. It is expected fix>in fhe State aufhoriti.es to pass suiteble onler afier due scrutiny offhe facts. It is made clear fhat fhis coiirt has not expressed any opioion on fhe m.erits of fhe case aad thc au&orily concemed woiiM be at Uberty to decide the representation strictly ia accordaace with law. Sd/- pritmker Diwakar Judge