SiNGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSlNo. (^m^ OF 2010. PETITIONER 0 .^»."*' ^^ ^^^^"' ^"•"" ^,..^^ RESPONDENTS •^'^ ^^> "A. €•J $M, ^ Ifej ® %\ G^^j ^rn^ Rajendra Singh Thakur, S/o. Shri Gulab Singh Thakur, aged about 52 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Atarmara, Block-Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C. G.) 3. r Block Education Officer, Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C. G.) ^:.^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :-HC—78 ~ *IMCTI »»*li«h '3^ r<<l'4|<^^, ^Tl1-(-)li(o, fc1dl-yl|,'(. ...U:..E..^..^..-..^.I.H.^P200 ^?T TI^F ( yl^<i^) STT^T "^RT f<4ioh ^ff 3?T^T ff»*lic»» ^;. '^HW^f^^T^Y SB_:_HONiBLB_MR^.JUSTmB_PRIT!]P! 2S. 10.2010 Shri SomkaB.t Ve.rm.a, couns Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Dy, G.A| Grievaace of the petitioner ia fhe year 1977/ he was appoinl pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a conipletion of probation, he was g^-anted 169-300. entitled for regular pay scale with| appomtoient ajid her case is sqii^rely covered wifh niimber of decisious passed by this Court ai^d also the judgnient rendered by fhe M,P. State AdHiinistrative /I|ribunal, Jabalpur io O.A. N©. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu 8& S$ Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) whereio. it has been Iield |that sioiilarly placed teachers ^Nfd^l'1 ^TF^JT "^ 'fet3t ir^^K ^73tfiW ^^V KER DIWAKER el for th.e petitionen for the State, IH the present petition is tiiat (:ed as Dy, Tea.ch.er on a fixed ileriod of tevo years aod after regular pay scale of Rs. Contention of the counsel f^>r the petitiouer is fhat she is effect froin fhe date of iaitial are entitled for regulai' pay scale appointment. from fhe date of their Hiitial It is not disputed by botJ:i tJjie parties that the matter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex disiiiissed by fhe Apex Court uj Tribunal to the effect that fhe Te4chers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regul.ar pay scal.e f?|om. tlie date of their m.itial apppuitinent pourt but the appeal was also pholdiiig fhe decision of the x :^ Uicr^j ^ ^ vy^y • ^"^^[-HC—78 'S^ ^ww^, y>Til^li<o, Hdl-M^ ..u....e.m...ci<»;..&m (p 'WT^IT^sn^"'^"" """""'" ""^^200 ^I^TTT5R7 (yii^<^T) 3?1^T ^T'f^fhF TOT ^T^Tsn*<w 'FRTWC^rf^T 3^?T subinlssion In view of fhe above the parties, fhe petition is dispos^d ^efcitioner is granted liberty to advised, in the Ught of tlie afore^ dated 27;12.2008 (Aimexure P/| respondent is directed to cousid^r and ia its perspective, If fhe footiag as per order passed by t| in Madhukairt Yadu (supra) and | Supreine Court in Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995, fhe petiti|on relief accordmgly. It is expected froni the st4te authorities to pass suifca.ble order after due scrutmy ofthe fa<tts, It is inade clear that fhis| opmion on merits of the case would be at libe^ to decide accordance with law. chH?<r1^1'< ^R^ ^ fe^ <f^^l< ^T3tfiW3H^T made by the cousisel for ofm fhe sam-e terms i.e. the make a representation^ if so ^aid jiidginen.t ajsd the cii'cular 5) ai)d ia tiiiTi, tlie concemed their case on its own merits oetitioner staad on tlxe saine ae State Admmistrate Tribrnial isubseqiientiy confirmed by the Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by ^ner inay be entitled to saxae Court has iiot expressed aay aud the autiiority concem-ed th.e representation stricfiy ia Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge ^