^ ^ ^L- IN THE HON'BLE HI6HCOURT QF C4H^Tns6ARH ATBILASPUR /2011 W.P. (sy N0. 3°>\\ PETITIQNER ^-;^ ^^^ »/.rS?^ / 1^>^A;>< ^t^ ^0'-^ ^^ ./<^ -^ .'•' vS?* ,<x RESPONDENTS : Brijendra Pr'asad Kushwaha, S/o Dharamdas Kushwaha, aged about 53 years, Upper &ivision Teacher (Tribal Welfare Department) 6ovt. Middte School Dumariya, Block BaJkunthpUF, Distt.-Korea (C.©.) VERSUS • >\. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. -Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korea (Baikunthpur) C)istt.-Koihea (C.6.) 3, Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, Block-Baikunthpur, Distt.-Korea (C.6.) WRIT PETITION UN&ER ARTCCLE 226 OF TME CONSTETUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OFTHEPETITCONER fS):- / . /^ ^ . ;/ i^ / CT i'/BWT ii ftST^fs.T.J l '^/^^ 'V'^^^A^. 'i'T 36 ^ As per the cause title.r^. ~i'~'^.'s^<^ ;?» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUIl (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwal^er) Writ Petition fSl No. 3911 of 2011 PETmONER Brljendra Prasad Kushwaha VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Cttiattlsgarh and others Shri Anll Singh Rajput, counsel for the petltioner. Shri Prav'm Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICUE 226 OFTHE CONSTrrUTXON OF ZNDIA ORDER (25.07.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petltlon (s that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher in the year 1978 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a pertod of two years and after completlon of probatlon, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entltted for regular pay scale wlth effect from the date of initlal appointment and hls case is squaraly covered wtth humber of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative TObunal, Jabalpur in 0^1. No. 2745/89 (Madfiukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & OtAens) wherein it has been held that simitarly placed teachers are entttled for regular pay scate from the date of thelr initial appointment. 3. It is not disputed by both the parttes ttiat the matter was taken up by the State to the Apax Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision +1 —a--' of the Trlbunal to the effect that the Teachws/Assistant Teachers are enUtled for regular pay scale from the date of their inltial .appolntment. 4. In vlew of the above submission rnade by the cnunsel for the parties, the petitlon is dfsposed of tn the same terms i.e. the petitioner Is granted liberty to make a rapresentatfon, if so advised, In the light of the aforesafd judgment and the circutar dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) and in tum, the concemed respondent ts directed to consider hls case on its own merits and fn its perspectlve. If the petitioner standson the same footlng as per order passed by the Stats Admlnistrattve Trlbunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Speclal Leave Petition (Ctvfl) No. 6892/93 by order datMl 03.01.95, the petitloner may be entttled to same relief accorctfngly. 5. It is expected from the State authorlties to pass suttable order after due scrutlny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that thls court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorlty concemed would be at llberty to decide the representatlon strtctly in accordance with law. ——-——~—~~.. SA- prittakerDiwakar •KS