PETITIONER BIN6LE BENCH IN TH1E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S| No.5:?'^^ /2011 Mahesh Ram Kurre S/o Shri Aaha Ram Kurre aged about 55 Years occupation Upper Division Teacher Govt. Giris Middle School Rampur, Block-Kartala Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^-.-- it^"..-"" p\ ,^^'w >^--"" RESPONDENTS: ^ 2. "^ ^?^ 'f t.~< •^' V1, 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare,, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) Corainissioner, Tribal Welfare Departnient, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. AssistantCommissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4.'' JointDirector . Treasury.accounts, pension, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) .„ WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PERTICULAR OF THE PETITIONERS: As per cause title. 2. PERTICULAR OF THE RESPONDENTS: As per cause title. ^-< <tl e.£.^' ^SfK^ lyist:y' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAItH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RBSPONDBNTS W.P.tSl.aO. 5T64/2011 Mahesh Ram Kurre versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Ajay Barik, counsel for the petitioner. ShriYasIiwa&tSmghTbakur, Dy. A.G. fortheState. WRIT PBTITION UNDER AIPTICI-B 226 OP THB CONSTITOTION OFIKDIA ORDBR (27.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner io. the present petition is tbat the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scafe of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aaad after conipletioB. of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of ftie counsel for fhe peti-tioncr is that he is entitted for regular pay scale wifh eflfeot froin fhe date of initial appoinfament and his case is squarely covered with numher ofdecisions passed by ttus Court and also fhe judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Adxnmistrative Tribuiial, Jabalpur in OJL No. 3745/89 plTadhufccint Yacbt & S6 OVhers Vs. Stecte ofW.P. Ss Others^where in it has been held that sinularly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fix>in tb.e date of fheir initial appoiutinent. It is tiot disputed by both fhe partfes that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disaaissed by the Apex Court uphoMiag fhe decision of the Tribunal to fhe effeot fhat the Teachjers/Assistaat Teachers sas entifled for regular pay scale fi-oia the date offheir initial appoiatment In view of (hc above subirussion niadc by thc counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is^gra&ted libei'ty to inake a rcpresenfation, if so advised, in rr^ the Ught offhe aforesaid jud^nent and fhe circular dated 27.12.2008 & 19.1.2009 (Acaiexure P/2) aad ia tura, fhe concenied respondent is directed to consider his case on its own m.eri.ts and ia its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on fhe saine footing as per order passed by tfae State Adnmustrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequentty coiiflnaed by fhe Supreme Coiurt ia Spw:ial Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner inay be entifled to saaae reUef accordiagly. It is expected fioin flie State aufhorities to p^s suitable order afier duc acrutiny of the facts. It is made clear fhat fhis court has not expressed aay opinion on the inerits of the case and thc aufhority concemed would be at liberty to decide flie representation stdcfly ia accordance with law. SA- Tritinker Diwafcar VMSJ^ iBi