c (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. (^tVA^ OF 2010. PETITIONER '.y.'r.-,;?.^.'?'' ^.».."i-^-;&4.tl((wr %^^$^:--- ^^.—"•°" RESPONDENTS ^^ Bala Ram Netam, S/o. Shri Ranihu Lal Netam, aged about 61 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School Kottara, Block-Charama, District Kanker (C. G.) VE R SU S : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C, G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^": ; • - • . • • 3. ' Block Education Officer, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ...»»,i.<..-^re.-<ars';,;i-.;.5»''--a3-^<,WT^~«4-..:^'<»-iw-—--*.s. •-^-78 *11*1C11 (h^lc^ '3~SET 'r*lt<MI^^T,yal-(HI!'o, [®ldl'Mlj,< ...U:l..^l.^:....^j^ 200 3^?T 1(^R5' ((i°lfl<i<<^;T) 37T^[ ^T f^'lJGb WT 3TI^T 9b^J<=h 4>- 'v ^nw^f?H3n^T SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRIT!»KERDIWAKER 25.10.2010 Shri Soinkant Veroia. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Dy, G coiin^el for tlie .petitioner, fortiie State, n Grievance of the petitionerj ia the yeai' 1976,- he was a.ppoii3|ted pay scale of Rs, 100-150 for a coiapletion of probationy he was 169-300. |in the present petition is that a.s Dy. Tea.ch.er 011 a fixed ^eri-od of two years a.n.d after ^rarited regular pay scale of Rs. Contention of fhe counsel entitled for regular pay scale wit^. appoiatment aud her case is decisions passed by fhis Coiirt by tlie M»P. State Admiaistrative 274S/89 IMadhukant Yadu & Others) wherein it has beeu heldj are entitled for regular pay scal^ appomtment. It is not disputed by bofh taken up by the State to the Ape.^ disxaissed by the Apex Court i| Tribunal to the effect that the entitled for regular pay scale appomtment. cM<<f<n<tii W^ff ^^& <P»i^i< cfr^tRFTOT^I [or the petitioner is that she is effect froni ttie date of iaitial sqijiarely covered wifh nuniber of •a(id also the judg.ment rendered Pribunal, Jabalpur ixi 0<A. Ho< 5|6 Others Vs. State of M.P. & that similarly placed teacliers froxn tlie date of their iaitial ^he parties fliat the matter was Coiirt. but the appeal was also kpholdiaig the decision of fhe Tejachers/Assistaiit Teachers are from fhe date of tlieir iriitial. ^ '^^.. ^•^ .^r./ :^^€&K-7S "S^s'^^^ y•c WRttTdt^raa ~5^ ^l^KriST, y(il-(-)li<o, [®ldl-y^< ....^..u.<?-.....^...^^to ^TI^TT^W (y^^) ^I^T ^? f^'lich ^TT 3?T?^T »i^icfiB & TPRTTW^ift^ ^TT^T iliake In view of fhe above subinisl tih.e parties, fhe petition is dispose^ petitioner is granted tiberty to advised, in the light of the aforesa^d dated 27.12.2008 (Annexiire P/6)| respondent is drrected to consider) and in its perspective, If fhe p^ footing as per order passed by th^ ixi Madhukant Yadu (supra) and s^ Suprenxe Coiirt iri Speciai Leave P| order dated 3.1.1995, the petitio^e reMef accordnigly. oiier It is expected fronx tlie st.at< order after due scruitmy of tlie fact It is xnade clear tliat fhis ( opinion ou merits of the case e would be at liberty to decide ti accordance with law. cni<<I<n<i1i ^TR^ff '8 fslst <Rn^i< '^3tRTH3??^| ^ion inade by the counsel for ofin tlie saiae terms i,e, fhe ^ake a representation, if so judgment aiid tlie circular 1 and in tiun, the concemed their case on its own nierits Ititioner stand on fhe saxn.e State Admmistrate Tribunal tibsequently confirmed by the btition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by niay be eutitled to same aufhorities to pass suitable Rourt has Bot expressed any s|nd the autliority coiiceraed |ie representation stdcfSy io Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge