cw M w? A Singtg 3&mh 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATjggGARH AT BILAgPqg w P. (S) No HKgL ”011 PETITIONER Janakram Gupta S/o Pancham [111 Gupta, aged about 62 years, occupation Retired Govt. Uppur- Division Teacher, R/o Ward No. 4 Bajarpara Lormi, District Bilaspur, C . G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS iffState or co. through the Secretary School Education Departmcnt, DKS Bhawan Raipur, (LG. 2¢The District Education ()fficur Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3."The Joint Dircctor Treasury an d Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ‘C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TI’W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF___ A1)! ' APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE ___Q_ MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC , 3a 2mm, @WHg, W11; H?‘~>\(‘Q‘1mi— .u WW mm; "Ia zoo mm (waa) w w. T. ._...w_-,‘_~.w..‘_w h, ”d. 'miwm wrc‘h' I? Fm? I‘m %mm $3.: HON’BLE MR. JUSTIC PRITINKER DIWAKER 04.98.301 2 mm 11%?! 3mm Shxi Dashraih Prajap coumse} far the patitionar. Shn' N.Naha Roy, Rb f r tbs $Eate. Grievance of the petitio er‘in the prascnt psfition i$ that the petitioner was appm'nted s Deputy Teacher on a f§xed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for period of two yeam and after aS grantedvregular pay scale of completioxl of probation: he a Rs. 169—300. Contention of the c01 entitlod for regular pay Scale appointment and his casa is squarely covered with number of aad also the judgment rendered Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 5r. 56 Others Vs. Stata of MJ’. been hem that similarly placed teachers are entitled for re yay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not aisputed by bo h the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to 'th Apex Comt but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex C mt uyholding the decision of the. Tribunal to the eii‘ect that th TeacherslAssistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scae from the ciate of their initial appointment. 1 for the petitioner is that he is h effect from the date-of initial decisions passed by this Co by the MP. State Administr 2745/89 (Madhukant Ya 8r. Others} where in it ha g a ‘ , 1 e ’t e u a d s XI~HC 78 WWW mmw mtmma and in its perspective. If the Tribunal in Madhukmt 'Yad conmmed by the Supreme Co rt in Special Leave Petition {Civi1) NO. 6892/93 by order may be eatitled to same relief am lte authon'tles to pass suitable :ts. It is expected from the St: Order after due serutiny 0f the fa It is made Clear that this opinion on the merits of the cas would be at liberty ts decide accordance with law, etitioner stamde on the 3ame ated 03.01.95, the petitiefaer :ordingly. court has 110t expressed amy e and the authority concerned the representatios strictly m Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge 3a WW @Wn’e, W113 Ema‘rm .{Fi 200 mm (gamiau) I. a: aifaq m ’ In View of the above subm ssiotlumade by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disp sed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty .o make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the afore aid judgment and the circular ’ dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexme Pl2 and in, turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consid r their case on its own merits footing as per order passed by the State Administrative {supra} and subsequently