5 SWGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No...-/..^.^:/........2011 PETITIONER ^'Jwy ^•^'••"^' ^^^v .-\\ "^•-"y RESPONDENTS ^ ./"^ ^v WRIT PETITION (1) Ram Singh Verma S/o Shri Raruha Ram Verma aged 59 years, Government Primary School Bahu Nawagaon Block B^metara District Durg C.G. VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2f District Education Officer, Bemetara District ^ Durg ( C.G.) UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ^' HIGH COXJRT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RBSPONDBNTS W.P.tSI.WO. §697/2011 Ram Smgh Verma versus State ofC.G. & Others Shn Ajay Shrivastava^ coiinsel for fhe petitioner, Shri Chaixdresh Shrivastava, P«L< for the State, WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTITUTIOII OFINDIA ORDBR (23.09.2011) The petitioner was initially appdbated as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay ofRs, 1200 and after completion ofprobatlon, ttie petitioner was graated regular pay scale, Contentiion ofthe counsel ft>r ffae petitiosaer is fhat he is errtitted for regular pay scale wifh effect froixi fhe date of mitial appdmtmeMt aad his case is squarely covercd with number of decisions passed by fhis Court and also fhe judgment rendered by flxe M,P, State Adminlstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0*A. JWo. 2745/39 ^BSadhwSaant Tadu 8s S6 WhersVs. State ofSS^ & Ofhers^where ia it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are exititled for regular pay scale from fhe date oftiieir mitial appomtoaient, It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties tihiat fhe matter was takeix up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but ffae appeal was ^so disiaissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiagjgie decision pffhe Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for reguter pay scale frora the date oftheir itiitial appoiatment Iii view of the above subxnission made by flw counsel for tihe parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia fhe same terms ie. the petitioner is graated Hberty to ixiake a representatioxi, tf so advi<^d, ia the Ught of the aforesaid judgnient aod fhe circular dated 5,1,2011 (Annexure P/2) aad ia turo., fhe concemed respondent is directed to ^ con&ider ffaeir case on its owa nierits aad ia its perspectfe^e, If fhe petitioner stands on fhe same footmg as per order passed by the State Adiniaistrative Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) mid subsequentty confinned by the Suprenie Court in Spec»l Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioaer inay be entitled to sanie reUefaccordm-gly. It is expected froni tihie State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy offhe facts. It 1s made clear tiiat this court faas xxot expressed apy oirinion on fhe merits of ftie case aad the aufhonly concemed would be at liberty to decide (he rcpresentatlon staictly m aceordance wiffa law» Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge