.-. .-.-TSfe -.. \ n o 3t- n•V ~s 3h rt^x, 13 pa ^ 1 -3 ro3•+ "}. N -j- ~I n-+ Nou» poo —(• ~s n-fr \ !?in T3c-s /"^rt \ 1-1 s o3 -h -h n -5 -3 q.' ou» -o c: ~1 \ -+ ~s (~>-i- 8 -h -+> n (O -3 f "o c \ -t n -+ -s ~) (Sn 1i "o c-s 1 o ^ 0-+ -I- 1/1 106 n o•^-+ <T> 3 s-/ (O3-fr .4 -s '^. ^^ '<>-• "•.'^1T\ ^c^^ ^x^.^ --'' \ *^.- ' ^,\^' -3 n o 33 on 7T 3" o o (fl n a- D ^ i~) ca o ~s r 3. s tn <. I tfl 3 3- -I u» 3" ~s 3- \ Q 13 o 11 3 10 ra Q. p_ cr oc ^ ^ OQ t-s V ^ > \ 0^°\ a ^ -f.SfS! ;'r\.r^ -OA ^L w 2- '%t^\ :^fi@l 1 'ii'ii-K \^ 23 HIGH COORT OF CHHATriSGAKH AT BILASPUR SB : HOH'BLB MR. JUS'nCB PRI'nilKBR DIWAKER PBTITIONBR RBSPONDBNTS W.P.tSI.NO. 5718/2011 Jeevan Lal Dewangaa versus State of C.G. & Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UBIDER ARTICLB 2S6 QB* THB CtMISTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (26.09.2011) Grievauce of fhe petitioner in ffac present petition is ftiat fhe petitioner was appointed as Asstetaut Teacher on a fixcd pay scalc of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after coinpletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300, Contention ofthe counsel for thc petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scalc wifh effect fi-ona. the date of initial appoiutment and his case is squarefy covered wifh nunaber of decisions passed by this Court and also fhe judgment rendered by the M.P. State Aduunistrative Tribimal, Jabalpur ia 0>A. No. 274S/89 (SSewOtUketivt 7a<fa SsS6 OtSters 7s. Sfate ofSS.P. & Others^where m it has been held fhat siuularly placed teachers are entitled for icgular pay scale froin the date oftheir initial appoiatment. It is not disputed by both fhe parti.es that the luatter was tAen up by the State to the Apex Coi.irt but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision ofthe Tribimal to the efifect that ffaie'Teachers/Assistaat Teacheis are eatitled for regular pay scale fix>in ftie date oftheir inltial appouitiaeiit . In view of fhe above subinission made by fhe couasel far fhe pfirties, tlie petition is di^iosed of in the same tenns i.e. the petitiQner te granted Hberly to niake a representation, if so advised, ia '•I'-h SSS&Ss 1 ,t,,.^'-:r'!" fhe light of fhc aforesaid judgment and fhe capcular dated 5.1.2011 (Anncxure P/2) aad in tura, the coacemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own inerits aad in its peispectivc. If tha petitioner stands on fhe saine footiag as per ordcr passed by the State Admirusteative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly coiifirmed by the Suprcmc Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.^, toe petitioner inay be entiflcd to saaie reliefaccordingly, It is expected fiom fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is iiiade clear fhat ttus court has not expressed aay opinion on fhe merits of the case and the aufhority concemed woidd be at liberty to decide the reprcsentation stricfly ia accordaace witfa law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge