) \\/‘ GD C Vt? 465 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR H?(a) WRIT PETITION [SI No. / 20 1 1 PETITIONER /,( Sita Ram Rathore S/o Shri Mahettar Ram Rathore aged about 58 years, presently working as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Middle School, Birtarai, Block Kartala Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF / RESPONDENTS: r 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) / 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and pension Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) M EilGI-I COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N SB : HON’BLE SHRI JU8T1CE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.($Q N0. 4719(201 1 W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE'CONSTITUTION 9F INDIA A earance: Shri Ashwini Sbukla, counsel for the petitionexs. Shri A.V.Sh‘n’dhar, P.L. for the: Sate. ORAL 01mm us.08.2o11) _ Grievance of the pejjh'on6r in the pmsenf pch'tion is that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for The petitioner ie that he is entitkd for regular pay scale with effect fmm the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered. with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Admim‘strative Tiibunal, Jahalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others} where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale mm the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matwr was raken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. PETITIONER Sita Ram, Rathom Versus RESPONDENTS In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the pa11ies, ths petition is disposed of in Vthc same terms Le. the petitioner is granted libexty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the. aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Sneciai Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.0L95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts: It is made clear that this coult has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at, liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge