Singte Bench ^ 1. ^ ^ t • [QO ^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Sitlff JS iUF .A» . '^.^'/v^ ''^v"^v ...-•• /• <fc.^'<b'-r-"'/-< h ^•••""^-''"' ^..••••\ ^.•••':'.A"?y"..^<('x' .^.^" ..---^ A" A® )•,-•••' <':tt- •Vf' '' .'\' // " "c>'' t!V 9«s^ years, S/o Shri Primary Girls School Nevsa, Block Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. The [>irector Biiaspur. Distt. '>'!. CONSTTTUTEON OF INDIA ^?^^^^^^^^^s^^^^^^^..^^^^^^^B^3S^^^^^BB^^^^ versus Gyan Chan.d Baiswade State ofC.G. 8s Others ShriK.S.Pawar, counsel for r. Q. A. petitioner. ftie State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OP THB CONSTITUTIOBI OPISDIA ORDBR Grievaace of the petitioner m the pres>ent petition is ttiat petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher oa a fixed pay scale Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years. and after completion probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contentioa of fhe counsel for tlie petitioner is fbLat he. is cntitled for regular pay scale wittt effect fi-oin the date of iiutial appoiatinent and tu.s case is squsrely covered with a.um.beF-ofdecisions passed by tbis Co-urt. and also tiie judgiueat rendered by the M.P. State Adnuiustra.tive Tribiuial, Jabalpur in O.A. Wo. 274S/89 {MaAhufeaiit Yeidu. & 56 Others Vs. StateCfM.P. Ss (Whers^where m it has been held fh.at sitiularly placed teachers are entifl.ed for regular pay scale froni.the date offheir iaitial appoiatment. It is UQt disputed by both. fhe parties that the inatter was talcen was also disxnissed tbe Apex Court but the appeal upholdiug tfae decision that fh.e .Teachers/Assistaut Teachers are entifled for regiriar pay of-fhcir iaitial aopointaient. In view of ttie above subnussion made by tlie counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of in tb.e sanie teniis ie. the petitiQner is granted Ilberty to iu.ake a representation, if so advised, in ^l lrti!!t!t«(»nit> M fhe light of fhe aforesaid judgnient and the circiilar dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aud ia tum, fhe coacemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own uierits aad in its perspective. Iffhe petitioner stands on tlie saine footing as per order passed by the State Admiiustratiye Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequenfty coaErtned by the Supreaie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, fhe pctitioner may be entifled to samc reUef accordingly, It is expected. from. fhe State authoritics to pass siutable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is inade clear that ttus court has not e.xpressed any opiaion on fhc merits of the case aud the aufhority concemed would be at Mberly to decide fhe representation stricfly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ll!il;ll ll1!!