X.^ SIII^IQ B&iiiell C ^-,(^0 / s> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^^ OF 2011. PETITIONER ^^ ^5^~ ^ ^ RESPONDENTS ^" f Shiv Narayan Sahu, S/o. late Shri Vishram Singh Sahu, aged about 58 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Giroud, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m[Tm ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKER W.P.!SLNO._6967^2011 PBTITIONER RBSPONDSNTs versus Shiv Narayan Sahu StMe of Chhattisgai-h & Otliers Shri Soinkant Verma, couusel for tlie petitioiier, Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITIOBi UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTXTUTION OFENDIA ORDER (24.11.2011) Grievaiice of the petitioner in fhe preseat petition is that the petitioner was appotated as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completiou of probation, he was graated regular pay scaleol'Rs. 169-300. Contention of fhe coiinsel for the petitioner is that he is entiUed for regular pay scaie with effect from the date of iaitial appoiateient aad his case is squarely covered with nuniber ofdecisions passed by this Court and also the judgm-ent rendered by fhe M.P. State Admiaistorative Tribiiual, Jabalpur in O.A, N^. 2745/89 (Mexdhulcant Yadu & 56 dthers Vs. State ofSS.P. & Ofhers^where m it has been held fhat siniitarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin the date of tlieir initial appointaient. It is not disputed by both the parties tliat the matter was taken iip by tlie State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdmg the decisiou ofthe Tribunal to the etTect fhat tlie Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitied for regiilar pay scale from the date oftheir mitial appomtaient. In view of fhe above subinission made by flie coiinsel for tlie parties, the petition is disposed of ia the same terms i.e. tlie petitioner is graated liberty to inake a representation, if so advised, ia o tlie Ught of the aforesaid judgment aad fhe circular dated 5.1,2011 (Annexure P/ 5) and ia tura, fhe concemed respondeiit is directed to consider his case on its own merits aiid in its perspective, If fhe petitioner staads on fhe sacae footmg as per order passed by flie State Adiniaistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (siipra) and siibsequentiy confirmed by the Supreine Court m Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same retief a-ccordiagly. It is expected frora fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnxtiuy of the facts, It is raade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed aay opinion on fhe nients of tiie case and fhe aufhority concemed would be at Mberty to decide the representation strictiy ia accordaace witli law. Sd/- 1 Pritinker Diwaker Judge