singhae‘nch Q/ygl‘Qaif g/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.IS)No. €29? /2011 PETITIONER /-’ Chinta Singh Raj S/o Shri ‘Son Singh Raj, aged about 56 years, Occupation Service, Posted as Head Master In Primary School Akrar, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENQ‘S 1. State of C.G. through the Secretaxy School Educatiorl Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. .The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Qh . ' W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF‘ AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONIORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. . 0/} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p.(s!.No. 6297/2011 PETITIONER Chinta Singh Raj Vel‘SuS State of C.G. & Others Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shn'dhax, P.L. for tbs State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2011) Gn'evance of the petiu‘oner in the present pen'tion is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a med pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs’ 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he. is enu'tled for regular pay scale with effect n‘om the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (IWadhukant Yadu 85 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their mitlal appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eh‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale &om the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in w; the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected nom the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. § Sd/- t Pritinker Diwaker t l Judge