IN THE HON'BLE HIGH C^URT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS... ^ ^7..s^ ^^^ ^•: (.•s."" |,.a*'^ \ ..**'"- ^ 'A- W.P. (S) No. <T ^-03 / 2011 Goverdhan Lal Patel, aged 62 Years, S/o Late Shri Ramadhin Patel, Retire Teacher, Primary School, Shurpa, Block & Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2'; District Education Officer, Distt.DurgC.G. '^.Block Education officer Patan, Distt. Durg WRIT PEnTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ^.^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATHSGARH AT BILA8PUR 8B : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER BIWAKBR W.P.fSl.NO. PBTITIONER Gcwerdhan Lal Patel VCTSUS RBSPONDENT8 State ofC.G, & Others Shri Soinkant Venna, counsel for the Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the State. loner. WRIT P^nTION UNDBR ARTICa-E 236 OrTHB CON8TITUTION OF IMDIA OKDER (26.09.2011) Grievaace of the petitianer ia fhe present petition is tfaat the petitioner was appointed as Dy. Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of two yeara and after coinpletiou of probation, he was graated rogiilar pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counscl fbr the petitionea- is fhat he is entifled for regular psiy scale with effect &om fhc date ofinltial appoiatment and his case is squarely covered vrifh number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tnbunal, Jabalpur in 0«A. No. 274S/89 pB'tulhtdkcnt 7<idu & 56 Others Vs. Stafe ofSLP. Ss Others^where in it has held fhat sinularly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scalc fi-om. the date oftheir initial appointment. It te not disputed by bofh the parties fhat the inatter was taken up by •Qys State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was ateo dianissed by the Apex Court upholding fhe decision offhe Tribunal to ttie efiFect fhat the ^'eachers/Assistant Teachers are entitted for regular pay scale fi'oin the date offheir initial appointment. In view of the above submlssion madc by <he coimsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed of in the same tenns i.e. the petiti6g.er is granted liberty to luakc a representation, if so advised, in the l^ht of fhe aforesaid judgmcnt aad the cu-culflT dated 5.1.2011 (Aniiexure P/4) and iu tum, the concemed respondait is directed to consider fheir case on its own nierits and in its pcrspective. If ttie petitioner stands on fhe same footing as per ordcr passed by fhe State Admuusteative Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (suprE^ aiid subsequently coiifinned by the Supreinc Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, Ae petitioner niay be entifled to same rdiefaccordiagly. It is expected fi-om fhe State authDrities to pass suiteble ordcr aflier due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is inade clear tbat this court has not expressed any opiaion on the inerits of fhe case and the authority concemed wouM be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge