BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) No. ff Q’W of 2010 M» f/ PETITIONER Kisunram Kunjam, S/o Late Shri Nanduram Kunjam, aged about 51 years, Heaémaster, Government Primary School, Potekohra, Block— Chhuriya, District-Rajnandgaon (CG) RESPONDENTS :1.’/State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 25’” District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3.“)w/Biock Education Officer, Block- Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon VERSUS (0.6.) (0G. ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF N INDIA. 3m m mm w.5Q:.§l>..?...9}gf.im*é ‘gi 2 W mam-«ma‘ww *aafmm SB : HON’3LE MR. JU3TICE PRITINKER DIWAKER 24.11.2010 Shri Gautam ICheh-apa’l, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Ajit Singh, P.L. for t1‘.c Statt. Grievance of the petih'o r in the ymscnt petition is that the petih'oner was. appointed s Assistant Teacher on a med pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for period of two years and after completion of probation, he wa granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contenu'on of the couns 1 for the petitioner is that he is h effect fmm the date of 1mt1al appointment and his case is s umely covemd with number of decisions passed by this Comt and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrativ Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. state of M.P. as Others) wherein it has been h d that similarly placed teachers nom the date of their Initial entitled for regular pay scale § axe entitled for regular pay s appointment, It is not disputed by bot the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Ap 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 scalei from the date of their initial ‘ i appointment. \ [‘fl’y‘ m , n - t c x \ XI3§§C—22 ?! a /l7 In View of the above sub mission made by the counsel fdr the 'parties, the petition is disp sed of in tho same terms i.e. the petitioner is gianted liberty t make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the afo said judgment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 and in ditected to consider their cas, perspective. If the petitioner st; order passed by the State Admj Yadu (supra) and subsequem Court in Special Leave Petitim dated 3.1.1995, the peu'tioner accordingly. ' It is expected from the s1 ate authoiities to pass suitable cider after due scrutiny of the facts._ It is made clear that this Coutt has not expressed any and the authority concerned the representation strictly in Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker , the concerned respondeut is on‘ite own merits and in its mds on the same footing as yer nistxate Tribunal in Madhukant 1y conjhmed by the Supreme 1 (Civil; No. 6892/93 by oxder may be entitled to same relief opinion on, merits of the case would be at liberty to decide accordance with law. / Judge [W kit??? t , en W em; H aiEs mmmm await? waif ii fe»atm %Wm WE EH