i. 3w Bsnch IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.} W.P.fS)NO. ~^A^C /2011 PETITIONER ^•'>^...^ .y' Ramsharan Singh Kanwar, Aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Dakhin Singh Kanwar, Head Master, Government Middle School Junwani, Block Kartala, District- Korba (C.&.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3: State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (C.6.) The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Oepartment Korba (C.G.) 4T' Block Education Officer Kartala, District- Korba (C.6.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Korba (C.6.) WRrLPETtTEON UNDER AKH.CLE226 QF_THE CONSTETUION OF INDIA EI(yfcS!!f! !fflwlui11 /^''' ^-^ ''-.^ /y^s""^ '% Versus rtr< Rainshai-ar. Siaglt Kaiiw. State of Chhattisgarh Otiiers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri BIiaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State. Grievance of fhe petitioner in fhe present petition is tliat the petitioner was appoiiited as Assistant Teacher/Trainee on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100-150 aud after coinpletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe couasel for fhe petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale wifh effect from. the date •yofm.inal appoujtment and his ca.se is squarely covered wifh nuiaber of decisions passed by fhis Court. aad also fhe judgnient rendered by ttie M.P. State Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.. 274S/89 (Madhv.'Kailt Tadti Sa S6 Others Vs. Sfafe ofM.P. & dthers/where ia. it has been held. that siinilaiiy piaced teachers are entitied for rcgular pay scale from the date pf th.eir initial appoiiitment. It is not disp-iited by both the parties that fh.e laatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disiaissed bv ftie Apex Court upholduig the decision of the Tribunal to the effect fhat fhe Teacliers/Assistant Teachers are eatifled for regular pay scale froin the date offheir initial appoiatm.ent. [n view of the above subinission iaa.de bv fhe counsel for tlie parties, tbe petttion is disposed of iu fhe saine tenns i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in *;\ Uie light of fh.e aforesaid iudRment aad fhe circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/2) and ia tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider their ca.se ou its own iiierits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on tb.e saine foottag as per order passed hy the State Adraiaistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently conjinned by fh.e Suprenie Couu't in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, ffae petitioner inay be entitled to sam.e relief accordingly. It is expected froin the State authorities to pass suitable order after diie scrutiny offhe facts. It is niade clear tliat this court has not expressRd any opinion on fhe inerits of the case aad the aufhority concemed would be at 2ibert5r to decide fhe representation stricfly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pririnker Diwakei-