C^ l0-^___ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. L(/^?5 OF 2011 «n PETITIONER : Praveen Tiwari, Son of Shri Jagnarayan, aged about 52 years, ••••'' r^ Working on the post of Upper '.;-<-c^-'" ._-.._. ^.••^.!^'^ ..••'Division Teacher, Government Boys '^.^^•N^)-^ Hi9her Secondary School, ^ \^51r'.^ r\li»^\*' \ "i..- ^yy">' ^'^ys '^- RESPONDENTS Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District.Raipur (C.G.). 2. ' The District Education Officer, Surajpur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ 'XI-HC—78 an^l ^il R-il«t> OTT an^i g^riq? \ -g':Sf ^iqK-TT, ^^TT^, fildiy^ .u..e...(jo...-:;....^.i>. sn^r •v^ C^qfy'i^T) TOnmtfean^i S.B.: titioAer ShriV.K.Pandey, eounst Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G Grievance of fhe petitio^ fhe petitioner was appoiated ^ scale of Rs. 100-150 for a coinpletion of probation, he Rs. 169-300. As in fhe present petition is that Deputy- Teacher on a fixed pay period of tn'o ycars and after \|?as graated regular pay scale of Contention of tbe counj entitled for regular pay scale appointaient and his case is decisions passed by fhis Coinf: by tlie M.P. State Adnuiustrati|ve 2745/89 plfedhufeant Yadu.\ taken up by the Stete to ffae) +i-i(id<a--f TW?ff 4' fyzt ^ai^n ^•affiroan^i ;1 &r the petitioner. A. for fhe State. i^el for fhe petitioner is tbst he is +rith effect Iroiu the date of ioitial ^quarely covered with nuinber of Coinf: and also the judgnient rendered Tribunal, Jabalpur in OuA. No. \& S6 Others Vs. Stute o/M-P. |been held fhat sinularly placed teachers are entifled for regul^ir pay scate from. the date of tbeir iiutial appoiatinent. It is not disputed by bo^h the parties fhat fhe inatter was Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex C<j)iirt upholdiug fhe decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect that thd entitled for regular pay scaj^e froin the Teachers/Assistant Teachers arc ^. XI-HC—78 ~S^ ^liqicPT, -^Tfte^ fa<<vl|yy sn^i ^T h-u^i '^Sti StT^T^qfq? an^i TR; (^fg*'^) FRITOt ^f^T OT^'f In view of the above sijbinission inade by the counscl for the parties, the petition is c|isposed of in the saiae tenns i.e, fhe petitioner is gran.ted libe^ty to inake a icpresentation, if so advised, iu the l^ht of the a^brcsaid judgment aad the circuiar dated 5.1.2011 (Anneuxre If/2) aad iu tum, ftie concemed respondent is directed to co^sider their casc on its own raerits and in its perspective. If tt^e petitioner stands on fhe same footing as per order pass Tribunal in Madhukant Vadu (supra) and subsequ confirmed by fhe Supreaie (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by ori{ inav be entifled to same icUef It is expected Q-ova. the| after due scrutmy ofthl opiruou on the inerits of the wtfCTiftT'cfifcff 4 fsv^iS^K ^ajfgiisntn ;d by the State Aduunistrative Court ia Special Leave Ftetttion :r dated 03.01.95, The petitioner accordingty. State aufhorities to pass suitable facts. It K inade clear fhat ftna court has not expressed any ;ase and the authorily concemed would be at Uberly to dec|de fhe representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker ,^ Judge