^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (Sl N0. >1^03 /2011 Gita Das Vaishnav S/o Narsing Das Vaishnav, aged about 58 years, Occupation Service, posted as Head Master, Govt. Boys Primary School Gondkhamhi, Block Lormi, Dista-ict Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^A '...l-^-y\' ^•^s^ L* ^ .'^^.^' 'y^- ^'^^^ ^/s>> 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary School Education Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. 2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ,WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 30NSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF '^IANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER 'IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. ^ F CS versus ,f 201 Gite. Das yaislinav Sxate ofC.G. & Otliers §-v SIiri Ratesh Paiid.ey, couasel for tlie petKioiier, Snri praveen Das, Dv. G.A. for tlle State^. / '/ Q? iym& Grievsace of the petitioner iii the present petiuou is that tlie petitioa.er waa a.ppointed as Depuni- Teache.r OQ a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of tsvo ycars and after coDipletioa of probalion, she was graa.ted regular pay scale of Rs. 545-925. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioiier is tbat she is entitled for regiilar pay scale with effect froax the date of mitisl appointment aad his case is square.ly covered wifb. nuiaber of decisions passed by tbis Court and also fbe. judgment'rerideTed 'by fhe M.F'. Ste.te Admiiustrati-o-e Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A JVo. 2745/89 (SSesdhukeint yadu Ss 56 SMhers 7s. State ef M.P. Ss Whers) wliere ia it has been lield tfa.at sixailaiiy placed teachers a-re eiititled tbr regular pay scale 6-oia tlie date of their mitiai, appotntmfint. It is not disputed 'by both the parties that fhe ina.tter was talten up by tlie State to the Apex Coi-irt bm. t.b.e. appeal 'was slso dismissed bv tbe Apex Court irob.oldiag the decision of the Tribuiial to tae effect tliat fhe TeacIiers/Assistaut Teachers sre eatitled for. reguJar pay scale frora. fhe dats of f'aeii' iaitial appoiatiaeat. la view of the above submissiori siade bv the counsel for t.fa.e parties; fiie petiti.an is disposed of ia th.e same. teiTos i.e. the n ,i;^-^ .^'"'2^,,^ -•% s ^ 9-'e^ petitioaer is granted liberty to make a represeBtation, if so advised, iii the light of fhe aforesaid judgm.ent aiid tac circiuar dated 5.1.20 "sl (Annexiu-e P/ 2) aitd in him, the concemed respondent is dii'ected to consider tbe.ir case on its owu nierits aiid iu its Dersnective. If tbe petitioner stauds on th.e saiae footi.ng as per order passed by fhe State Aditiiaistrative Tribunal in Madh'akant Yadii (supra) aiid subsequenfly confirined by t3ie Supreme Court: iu, Speciai Leave Petitioa (Civuj N0. 6892/93 by ord.e-i- dated 03.01.95, thc petitioner raay be entitled to saiae reUef accordmgly. It is expected froin fhe State aiil.'.horities to oass suitable order after due scnitmy of the facts. It is uiade clear that fliis court has not expressed anv ooinion o.n fhe merits of fhe case and tlie autJiority concemed woiild be at. Kberty to decide the representeition strictlv ia, accc.rdaiice wit.h Isw. Sd/- i Pritinker Diwaker ^ ie ;