IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. '^^M'^j- /2011 PETITIONER \^\}- 2^^j-^- y..---"\ <\^' ^\ Ashoknath Tiwari S/o Shri Tribuvan Tiwari, aged about 54 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls High School Jarhi, Block Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) ^^' yiK.'- <y- --^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS r. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, ^Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, ^Ambikapur, D'rstt. Surgua (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pehsion, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA //^ 8 ^^%S;'!k, o HIQH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ;0.7647/2011 Versu.s Ashoknath Tiwari State of Chhattisgarja & Others Shri Raliu! Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for fhe State. Grievance of fhe petitioner ia the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after coinpletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale witti effect from. the dafe of uutial appoiotEaent aiid his case is squarely covered with. nuiiiber ofdecisions passed by this Coiirt aad also fhe judgnient rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. Na. 274S/B9 (Madftttfcan.t Yadti & S6 Others Vs. State ofK.P. & Others^ where in it has been held. fhat similarly placed teachers are enutled for regular pay scale frorn the date of ttieir initial appoiritment. It is not disputed by both fhe parties fhat the inatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeai was also dismissed by flie Apex Court upholding fhe decision of the Tribunal to the effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistent Teachers are entifled for regiilar pay scale &-OBI the date of their initial appointment. In view of the above subniission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same tena.s i.e. the petitioaer is granted libertv to laalce a representation, if so advised, iu ^..^^.ll''l,\ v. ' .A 's g '%&j*Fsy tlie light of fhe aforesaid judgnient aod fb.e circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/ 2) aiid ia tam, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own iiierits and in its perspectivf;. If tbe petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by fhe State Admiaistrative Tribim.al in. Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirraed by tiie Supreiae Court ia. Special Lea.ve Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner raay be entitled to saiue relief accordingly. It is expected froin the State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is m.ade clear fliat tliis court has not expressed aay opinion on. the raerits of fhe case and fhe autboritv con.cemed would be at Ubert5r to decide fhe representation strictiy ni accordaiice witii law. Sdf- Pritiiiker Diwaker - .Judge