^....--:'"-^'!-i-^"^.- fS^wyS-^rf ^(C<;-"' \'^-1-""" ' ' ' SS'y'.c-B.-. ^ •!asa-y SWses i.sa.-a IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0.''^^4-6 /2011 PETITIONER RES^QNDENTS Arun Pratap Singh S/o Rambaksh Singh, aged about 58 years, Headmaster, Govt. Girls High School, Kerta, Block Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, Distt. Surgua (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION QF INDIA I.Jl' Versus Anitl Pratap Siagh State of Cbhattisgarli Ottiers Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for tb.e petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State. WSIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE COHSTITUTION Grievance of the petitioner iu the present petition is that fhe petitioner was appointed as 'Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 aad after corapletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is tliat he is entitied for regular pay scale wifb. effect. froni ffcie 'aate of isitisl appointment aad his case is squarely covered with nuinber of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also the judgnieiit rendered. by ftie M.P. State Ad.miaistra.ti.ve Tribiinal, Jabalpur iu O^A. No. 274S/89 fMcwthv.ka.nt yadu Sa SS Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) whsre iii it has been held that similariy placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fi-oia the date of their icitial appoititm.ent. It is not disputed by botli fhe parties fhat fhe inatter was taken up by tlie State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disiaissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision of fhe Tribiuial to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are eatitled for regular pay scale from. the date oftheir initial appoiatnient. In view of fhe above subinissioa luade 1]v the counsel for the pai-ties, fhe petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. fhe petitioner is granted liberty to siake a. representation, if so advised, in. iS^ 'ii;,^^ '^-'.5;-^^^' I '^ ^ tlie Ught of ftie aforesaid judgment aad tb.e circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/2) aud in turu, the conceraed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits and in its perspective. !f the petitioner stands on fhe same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Admitiistrative Tribunal iu Madhiikaat Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order da.ted 03.01.95, the petitioner niav be entifled to same relief accord.ia.glv. It is expected from. tlie State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitmv ofthe facts. It is niade clear fhat this court has not expressed any opinion on th.e nierits of the case aad fhe authoritff concemed would be at liberty to decide Qie representation stricfly ia accordaace with law. Sdf- Pritiisker Diwaker c.