c^- \ ^-^____ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. *7 | <? ^ QF 2010. PETITIONER ^ ^•<"^'" ^'y... ^^•", /Jagannath Prasad Yadav, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Shri Anant Ram Yadav, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Suloni, Block-Sarang-garh District Raigarh (C. G.) V E.R S U S RESPONDENTS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C. G.) 3. BIock Education Officer, Sarang-garh, District Raigarh (C. G.) Y" 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account & Pension, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^>;-i<-? The petitioner begs to submit as under:- I-HC-22 3Tr^T^T l^lich ^TI^T ?b^icb ^ri^^ ^~5£j"^TFT^PT,'^BtW^. f^<y11<Hll< 3'n^r "^ra? _..$^.L£.^.y>..i.M-?f(^ /fc ^IWrff ^^[G^ •^^ST' ^I^T'^RTTWHf^T cbl^id^l^ 'HTR^Jf'? 'ft^t <f^<^l< '^3tf^TH3TI^r SB : HON'BLE MR. JUjgTICSj»mTlN|KgSLDX%AS^it 06.12.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel Smt. SmitaGhai, P.L. forthe Slkate, Grievance of the petitioner in petitioner was appointed as Dy. Tea^her 100 for a period of one yeax' and afterj granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-^ Contention of the counsel fd> entitled for regular pay scale with appointment and his case is squ| br the petitioner. the present petition is that the on a fbsed pay scale of Rs. completion of probation, he was lOO. >r the petitioner is that he is effect from the date of initial 3.rely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and aJjso thejudgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Othems Vs. it has been held that similarly placec^ pay scale from the date of their initial jlarti< It is not disputed by both the up by the State to the Apex Court bi-t by the Apex Court upholding the that the Teachers/Assistant Teach^s scale from the date of their initial app^intment ^Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 ^tate of M.P, & Othew) wherein teachers are entitled for reguiar [appointment. arties that the matter was taken t the appeai was also dismissed of the Tribunal to the effect are entitled for regular. pay decision In view of the above submissi^n made by the counsel for the paities, the petition is disposed of in 1|he same terms i<e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to make a represen|tation, if so advisedy in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cjrcular dated 13.1.09 (Annexure P/6) and in tum, the concemed re^ their case on its own merits and in pondent is directed to consider its perspective. If the petitioner ^tands on the tame tootlng ai^peF^bTder passe^TSy^TITe^S^i^^ •;^':Ta^ I ^Tf^T^T ^Jcb ^TI^T '^'RW^rfi^ .^ ...^J -yer ^HH^I, ^xily^l^. ^<ni'yy sni^r 'tRr^ WH^T^WG^ '^n, 200 f3R^T' ^n^T'^TT^Trf^T Administrate Tribunal in Madhukaht confirmed by the Supreme Court i^ 6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1995,| same relief accordingly. It is expected from the state after due scrutiny of the facts. it is made clear that this Coiirt on merits ofthe case and the authc^rity to decide the representation strictlyi <=hl^t<rt<flT1 'HTR^f ^ 'fel:st ipsK^K '^'3:rf^:R3T1^T Yadu (supra) and subsequently Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. the petitioner may be entitled to authorities to pass suitable order has not expressed any opinion concemed would be at liberty lin accordance with law. yntift^er sd'owker juAse rft^ -^-POT