M .,/ ,^7 INTHEHI6HCOURTOFCHHATTI:SGARHATBILASPUR WRITPETI:TIONfsyNO.€C?3J..GF2Qll PETCTCONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.^ ^^^ ....••y:.-r"^' ^••y:..-<0 2. 3. ^•:>'^ Smt. Annpuma 6upta W/o. Pawan Kumdr Gupta, aged about 51 years, ; Post of Assistant Teacher, |Workin9 as ^ovt. Primary School, AAowa, BIock Dharshiva, Ibistt. Raipur (C.G.) .\ State of Chhattjsgarh, Through Secretary, EducQtion Departmen|t, D.K.S. Bhdwan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.&.) District Education Gfficer, Raipur, bistt.Ra(pur(C.G.) Block Education Officer, Biock Dharshivd, bistf.Raipur(C>.&.) WRITPETITIONV^DERARTICLEg260FTHE CGNSTITUTIONOFIN^IA /^^ '"Y ^ H ^ Ei ^^•aSIsg^ ij 1 '^jPssi| ^J ^- \^^ "{-^^S^S ^ <y HtQHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SB : HOITBLB MR. JUSTICB PMTINKBR DIWAKBR PETITIONBRS RBSPONDBNTS W.P.(81.NO. 6031/2011 Sint Aniipunia Gupta versus State ofC.G. & Others k—,- Shri Aiuit Kuniar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (12.10.2011) Grievance of ftie petitioner in fhe presen.t petition is that the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scate of Rs. 150 for a period of two years aad after completion of probation, she was granted rcgiilar pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of fhe couusel for the petitioner is that she is entitied for regular pay scale wifh effect from fhe date of mitial appoiatnient aad her case is squarety covered witii nuxnber of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also the judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Adniiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpzir in. O^A. Na. 2745/89 {aSadhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.J». & dthers) where in it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froin fhe date of their initial appouitment, It is not disputed by bofh tlie parties fhat the inatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitied for regular pay scale frowi fhe date of their iaitial appointment, In view of the above submission inade by fhe counsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia fhe same terois i.e. fhe ^ petittoner is granted liberty to miake a rcpresentation, if so advised, ia fhe Ught offhe aforesaid judgnient aad the circular dated 5.1,2011 (Annexure P/5 ) aad ia tum., fhe conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in. its perspective, If fhe petitioner staods on fhe same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Admioistrative Tnbiiixal ia Madhukant Yadu (siipra) aad subsequently confirmed by the Suprenie Court ia Special Leave PetiUon (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner may be entitied to same reUef accordiagly. It is expected from fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiay of fhe facts. It is made clear that fhis court has not expressed aiiy opmion on fhe merits of the case aad fhe auftiorily concenied would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation stricfly ia accordaace wiffai law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge