(^^1 0-0 Sinflte Bwich /^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION fS) N0^ Vv^ /2011. PETITIONER: •v:^ ^"" ^1^ ^^ ^' ^.^ ^•"y"...<-<^n ^c-^' '^••"" "Ay Respondents Sundar Ram Paikra, son of Parshunath Ram^ aged about 49 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Block A.^- Mainpat, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. versus l! State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretaiy Educatipn Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2F District Education Officer, District Sarguja, Chhaftisgarh. 3. Block Education Officer, Mainpat, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. w Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' ^l '¥'1 il' ^1 1 %. A ~^IA '^^ ^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CMMATTISGARH AT BILA^»Ull (Hon.Mr. Justice PritSnker DiwatoBr) Writ Petitlon fS) No. 4143 of 2011 [QNER Sundar Ram Paikra VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^a^ of Chtiatttsgarh and others Shri Martsh Khuntiya/ counsel for the petjUoner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETmON UNDeRARTICl.E 226 OFTHE CONSnTUTION OF INDM O R D E R (01.08.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present pctition ts that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay seale of Rs. 150 and after successfully completlng the probation period, he was granted regular pay scate. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petittoner is that ^m is entitled for regylar pay scale with effect from €hQ eiate ©f fnitial appointment and hls <:a$e is squarety covered with number of declsions passed by thls Court and a\9o the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Adminlstrath/e Trlbunal, Jabalpur in 0^1. No. 2745/89(Maflhulan9 Ya^u & S6 Otfieiy Vs. State of M.P. & <%A®/s)wherein it has been held that simitarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their Inttial appointment. 3. It ts not disputed by both the partte$ that the mattser was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeat was also dismissed by the Apex Court ypholding the de^sion of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teactwr^/Assistant ¥1 ^^/ ./' -2.- Teachers are entltled for regular pay scale from the date of thejr Initial appointment. 4. in viewof the above ajbmlssson made toy the ccwjnsel for the parties, the petition Is disposect of in the same terms l.e. the petttioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the llght of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to conslder his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitior^r stands on the same footing as per order passed by ttw State Administrative Tribunal in Maclhukant Yadu (supra) arxl subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court tn Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petltioner may be entitled to same reiief accordingty. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It ts made clear that tbis court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed woutd be at llberty to decide the representation strictty in accordance with law. --—- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge