r ~.^; c^^] IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fStNO. ft^L/5 /2Q10 PETETION^RS ^ A^^ ^® ^yT ^ J"'' ^" RESPOND6NTS 1. AmratRamKunjam.S/oLate Shri Dhan Singh, aged about 55 years, Upper Division / Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Udkuda, Distt.-Kanker (C.G.) 2. Dabe Singh Jurree, S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Jurree, aged about 53 years, Head Master, 6ovtl. Primary School Mainpur, Distt.- Kanker (C.6.) VERSUS : l^State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education / Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. ^- Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. bistrict Education Officer, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.6.) ^" 3. Assistant Commissioenr, Tribal Welfare bepartment, bistt. Kanker(C.6.) ^" 4. Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.)^ WRIT PETETCON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTEON OF INblA. u ^- -HC—78 ~3~=T "Hl<4ld<<, ailly'lio, fs|dl'9ti< ,,,,^,^,^....^.£..^...^..fc^^L& 'WRWsFW^ Sll^Tira^ (li?lt^al<llEf) sn^i q^ 1<-) '^WST^T'^RT^T li BWlW ^lfel 3II^[ SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE ?KS1 Shri Anil Singh Rajput, coun Sh.dVivek Slianiia, P.L. for tbe Grievance of ftie petitioners i the petitioners were appointed as ; pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a conipletion of orobation, tliev were Rs. 169-300. tn Contention of fhe counsel fd are eiititled for regular pay scale initial appoiatment aad fheir caj nuniber of decisions passed b}| judginent rendered by the M.P. S| Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Mf Vs. State of M.P. & Others) wltereia similarly placed teachers are entit^ the date of fheir initial appouitiueiil It is not disputed by both th|i taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex (( disinissed by the Apex Court uj^ Tribunal to the ef&ct fhat fhe Teajshers/Assistant entifled for regular pay scale frj: aTiOointinent.__ CM'tlt<il4ll MW^t ^ fe^ <P>1^K ^aifmsn^T sel forthe petitioners. State. ti the present petition is that Vssistant T'eachers oa a fixed sriod of two years and after ;ranted reguiar pay scale of 'r tlie petitioners is that fhey Iwifh effect fiwin the date of ^e is squarely covered with this Court aad also fhe tate Adiuinistrative Tribunal, ^dhukant Yadu & 56 Others it .has been held that ed for regular pay scale froin t. e parties that the inatter was Soilrt but the appeal was als,o iholding fhe decision of fhe Teachers are )iu fhe date of fheir iaitial 31]^iqiTf<.) . 'tTSfT STT^T ai^ich dTci '<ii'!<i<a'4, ©•iil'M'Ko,fsfdl-My ^.^...^'IS^.^S^ ] fo StI^T'q^i' (llilf^«)^EI) ^nw ^ifro an^f itidi' aforefeaid In view of the above subi fhe parties, the petitioii is dispos petitioners are graated liberty tj advised, in the Ught of fbe dated 27.12.2008 aud in tumj directed to consider fheir case perspective. If the petitioners order passed bv the State Admiiju Yadu (supra) and subsequenf|y Court ia Special Leave Petitio^ dated 3.1.1995, the petitioners| accordiugly. stfcid tinidu It is niade clear ftiat fhis opiaion on inerits of fhe casej would be at liberty to decide| accordance with law. q)i*{I<vi41^ Hft<?ff ^ ^^f Tfyi^R •^gifntian^T i^ssion inade by the counsel for jed ofin the saiae tenns i.e. tlie t> inake a representation, if so ^aid judginent and the ciE-ciilar the concenied respondeut is on its own inerits aud ia its on tbe saine footing as per lustrate Tribunal in Madhukant confirmed by the Supreine (Civfl) No. 6892/93 by order |m.ay be entitled to sarae relief It is expected froin the st^te authorities to pass suitable order afler due scnitiuv of ffae fsj< ;ts. Court has not expressed any and fhe authority conceraed the representation strictly in Sd/- ,_„ pritinkerDi^akar Judge