0 »tN6LE BENCH IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. A^ OF 2010. PETITIONER ,SS;^3B* ^^^.^•"••••- RESPONDENTS ^w^ f<^^ ^/ \^: •[SM.J^^\f ^0^ ^•T^ Tn"' Jiya Ram Mandavi, S/o. late Shri Naval Singh Mandavi, aged about 60 years, ^Head Master, Govt. Girls Middle School Antagarh, Block- Antagarh, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. ' Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^' 3. Block Education Officer, Antagarh, District Kanker (C.G.) ^" 4.r Treasury Officer, Treasuiy Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF Ti|E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :-HC—78 *ii*i<flr tbNi^ 's^ '^ww^, ^-^ww, f®idi<ylj,< U^Q-^o^^^l^ ,200 ^TT^T '(T5W ( yi^^) 9^?l ^T f<»lJch WT 3?H^T wiicy» ^<nw1ffl?^^n^T SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSlTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR 26.10.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, couns Shri SusneshBajaj, Dy. G.A, Grievance of fhe petitioner tlie petitioner was appoioted as D^ of Rs. 100-150 for a period oftwoj probatiou, he was grauted regularj $1 Contention of the counsel fd eutitled for regular pay scale withj appoiatnient aad her case is squ| decisions passed by this Court aii|d bv the M.P. State Adiairiistrative Tt 2743/89 (Madhukant Yadu 8s S^ OthersJ wherem it has been lield are entifled for regular pay scalej appoiatinent, It is uot disputed by both taken iip by fhe State to the Apex disinissed by fhe Apex Court uj Tribunal to the effect that fhe Te^ entitled for regular pay scale fitj appomtoient. CM<<f<n<fli '^R^f 'Sf 'fe%t> <f^i^i< ^3tRR317^T al tbr the petitioner. for fhe State, fhe present petition is that . T'eacher on a fixed pay scate years aad after coxnpletioa of pay scale ofRs. 169-300. |r fhe petitioner is that she is effect froni fh.e date of initi.al. ^rely covered with niiinber of also the judgnient rendered nbunal^ JabaJpur in 0,A. No, . Others Vs. State of M.P. & that siiiiilarly placed teachers froiii th.e date of tlieir niitial f4.e parties tliat the niatter was pourt but tlie appeal was also |)hold:mg the decision of the [.chers/Assistaat Teachers are loni the date of fheir imtial ^ '•"—\ —78 WRClT^»^ra» 'S^T ^l^l^^T, ^Ti1-(H<i<o, f®ldl-ylj,< ^.....U:...£iC2>2...^.-...^<, ^T^?T TT^R' ( yil^^) ^I^T "^T'RFTNF ^I^H 31?^T 9fi*i[^ •^•^^ 'v^! ^nw^f?^3?r^? )in3js afbresfedd P/4) In view of tlie above subinils! tbe parties, the petition is dispos^ petitioner is granted liberty to advised, in the Iig&t of fhe dated 27.12.2008r (Annexiire respondent is directed to consid^r and in. its perspective. If fhe ]| footiag as per order passed by tl^ ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad Supreme Court iii Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995, the petiti<|>i reMef accordingly. i^sion inade by the couusel for fcd of in the sanxe temis i.e. fhe [make a representation, if so judgnient aad the circular aod ia tum, tlie concemed then* case ou its owxi inerits ktitiouer staad on tlie saiae [e State Administi'ate Tribunal ^ubseqiiently coufirmed by the petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by L<|>ner m.ay be .entifled to sanie It is expected froni the sta| order after due scrutixiy of tlie facjts It is inade clear that fhis opmion on nierits of the case woiild be at UberU^ to decide accordaiice with law. ^Ni<?l41'1 'RTR^f "^ fe^ <F»1^1< i73ffiR 3H^¥T LC authorities to pass suiteble Court has iiof expressed an.y aod the autiiority coucenied rhe representation strictly io Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge