IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No...t.-?:^.-^........2011 PETITIONER ,(7\^ v^^-"' '...-;'"L-\'^" -..•••"" eP-"^^;p"" ...>"\, ":^w" ....-•••^ '.^- ,B& \ -.<? ^••••"" RESPONDENTS (1) (2) Pardeshi Ram Uikey S/o Shri Sagun Singh Aged about 57 Years, Head Master Primary School Belpara Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. l^- 9^ W.P.(S).NO. 7299/201.1 versizs Pardeshi Ram Uikey State of Chliattisg.arh & Others Shri Ajay Shrivastava, couiisel for the petitioner. Shri Shasha&k Thakur, P.L. for fh.e State. (02.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petition is ftiat fiie petitioner was initiaUy appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 aa.d after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect from. fh.e date of iaitial appouitment aiid his case is squarely covered with nuraber of decisions passed by this Court and also the judginent rendered by the M.P. State Admiaistrati.ve Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274S/S9 (Wadhukan.t radtt & 56 Others Vs. State afM.P. <Ss Otkers) where in it has been held fhat siinilarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froiu the date of their uiitial appointm.ent. It is not disputed by both the parties fh.at tlie niatter was taken up by ffae State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disaussed by the Apex Court upholding fhe decision of fhe Tribuaal to the effect that fhLe T^eachers/Assistaut Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fi-om fhe date of fh.eir initial appoiatcaent. In view of fhe above subiaission niade by th.e couasel for the parties, tlie petition is disposed pf in fhe same term.s i.e. tbe petitioner is granted libert}r to laake a representation, if so advised, in fhe light oftlie aforesaid judgnieut and the circular dated 27. 12.2008 .(Annexure P/5) and ia turu, the concemed respondent is directed to tl .'».'—^," 'iA. ? :i ^? 'ki ;! '^w''6'.^ ^\ consider his case on its own merits and in its perspcctive. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footing as per ord.er passed by the State AAmiD.istrati.ve Tribunal in Madhukaut Yadu (supra) and subsequentty confimied by the Suprenie Court ia Special Leave Petitioii (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner m.av be entitled to same iclief accordtaglv. It is expected from the State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy of the facts. It is m.ade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed any opiaion on fhe inerits of fhe case aud fhe authori.tv concemed would be at. libert}' to decide fhe representation stncfly ia. accordauce wifh law. '.^^akar yriun^