i/ 4/ SINGLE gswcH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. s No. 39 /2o11 / ETITIONE Suresh Kumar' Shrivas’rava, Aged abouf 59 year‘s, S/o LaTe Shri Durga Pr'asad Shrivasfava, Head Master, Governmen‘r Urdu Primary School Khapar'ganj, Bilaspur Block Bilha, Disfricf—Bilaspur (C.G.) VER5U5 RESPONDENTS : L/ Sfm‘e of Chhaffisgar'h Through Secretory, School Educm‘ion Depor‘rmenf D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur' (C.G.) 2. The Direcfor Public Ins’rrucfions Rolpur (6.6.) 3. Dis’rr‘lcf Educofion Officer, Bilospur', Dislricf—Bllaspur' (C.6.) 4./ Block Educafion Officer Bilha, Dis’rrlc’r- Bilospur (6.6.) 5. Join? Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur (Ca) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE \s / CONSTITUION OF INDIA PR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w? SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p.1sy.No. 66391201 1 PETITIONER Suresh Kumar Shlivastava Vél‘SuS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. 8:. Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Shashank Thakur, P.L. for th€ State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.1 1.201 1) Grievance of the pet'u‘oner in the present petiu'on is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 as Trainee/Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year and thereafter in the year 1975 on a hxed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of one year. After completion of probation, in the year 1976, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale With effect from the date ofmitial appointment 'and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (M'adhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eEect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their m1t1al appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petiu'on is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected nom the State authorines to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation. strictly in accordance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge