.'•••"^l^<WV ^'Si^^'' ^^^.^^y-" \^\..-^ <S) 'i^-l 15§IIVlJ ^Jl BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(SlNo. //J^^- of 2010 PETITIONER 1. RESPONDENTS Hinda Ram Mandavi, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Shri Jarman Singh Mandavi, Lecturer, Government High School, Bakharutola, Block- Chhuriya, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS rC :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block- Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^SS9&., f^, HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR Sinaje Bench; Hon'bSe ShriTvlanindra ivlohan Shrivastava. J. PETITiONER RESPONDENTS WRiTPETmON!S)N0.4S97/2010 ninda Ram Mandavi Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETiTiGN UNDER ARTJCLE 228 OF TnE GONSiTUTJON OF INDIA Presenf: - Shri Gautam Khetrapai, counsel for the petitioner. '4 Ms. SrnitaGhai.Panei LawyerfortheState. GRAL ORDER (Passed on 18th ofAugust, 2010) The petitionerwas initiaiiy appointed as Asslstant Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100/-. After compietion of his probation period, he was granted reguiar pay scaie. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submltted that the issue invoived In the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitied to reguiar pay sc-aie ^ with effect from the date of iniuai appointment or afier corfipjetion of probauon ^period. 3. The issue invoived herein was consldered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpurin O.A.NO.2745/89 (Madnukant Yadu and 56 Others v. Stete ofMP.\& oiftera), whereln it was heid that the similarEy sltuated teachers are entitied to reyuiar pay scaie vvith effect frorn the date of jnitigij appointrnent. The rnatter vvas tak-en up to the Hon'bie Supreme Court. T^ie appeai was dismissed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court upholding the dedsion of the Tribunai to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitied to reguiar payscaie frorn the date of jnitiai appointment. 4. in v-iew of the above stated submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed off in the sarne terms l.e. the petitioner Is granted iiberty to rnake representation, if so advised, to consider his case, if he stand on the sarne fooungs as per order dated 24-08-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Admlnistrative Tribunai, Jabalpu? in OA.No.2745 of 89 Msufrukwn Yeidu fsupra; and sybsequently confltTned by order dated yi@3-01-1884 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.6892/1983 and grant reiief accordinySy. 5. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge H Dsspts