*WGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (SlNo. &^^ OF2010. PETITIONER 96/1°., ^......^•'•"""Ai^XK 'SifcttriS^ - l»s' '^^^^jS ^Bd..-""°"/ Dashrath Lal Markam, S/o. late Shri Mahatru Ram Markam, aged about 53 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Pandaripani, Block- Charama, DistrictKanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State bf Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, Disfrict Kanker (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 4." TreasuryOfflcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) .^\ 5. The Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Pandaripani, Block-Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITTON UNDER ARTICLE 226_QFTHE nnNRTTTUTION OF INDIA NI*ICTI <h*ll<ft 'S^ '^TPTFR, ^ftW^, [®i<ni-y^< ..W:....&..(J>.?..c^.:...^^/h "^,200 ^TI^TT '<T5W (^{^<s(<^T) ^T^t^FTf^fbF H8TT ^TT^T ^W^iT ^. _...-.^ IT^HW^f?^ 3^?T SB :HON'BLBMS^JUST1CBPRITI 25.10.2010 •UI5|S' Shri Soinkant Vemia, COUB Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Dy* GJ Grievan.ee of the petitioner in the year 1979, he was appoir pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a completion of probation, he was 169-300. |in. tlie prese.nt petitioa. is that |ted as Dy. Teacher on a fixed Iperiod of two years and after ^raated regular pay scale of Rs. Contentiou of fhe counsel entitled for regular pay scale wit] appointsnent aiid her case is sqi decisions passed by this Court a by fhe M,P. State Adminiistrative 2743/89 (Madhukant Yadu 8& 5 Others) whereia it has been held ai^ entitled for regular pay scal appointaient. It is not disputed by both 1 takeii up by the State to the Ape? disinissed by fhe Apex Court Tribunal to the efiect fhat the entitled for regular pay scale appoiFitinent. 4)1^^1^ ^iTR^ff ^f f^st <F^^I< i73tRP:T^T^T SKERDIWAKER sel for tlie petitioner, , fi3r fhe State, for tlie petitioner is tliat she is b effect from ffae date of mitial sq^iarely covered with number of |id also the judgment rendered pribiinal,, Jabalpur :m 0<A. No. ij6 Others Vs. State of M.P. & that similarly placed teachers fc froiii fhe date of their mitiaJ. |Iie parties that the niatter was Court but tlie appea! was also ^ipholding tlie decision of the T^achers/Assistaiit Teachers are Froni the date of their' initial ^ ^^t^.^r^ ^^, ;^-^,»^ :C~78 ^IHCTI (t»*<!<?» TSf «^|A||<ri^ y)Tll-(HIS<o, f«l<yll'M'j,< .—.....y^&.^i..^.:...^^. •"^200 STI^T TPPF (yif^^T) sn^y^rf^ThF WfT 3?n^T$F^W ^-"~ '^TTW^^3?Tt?T )ini& In view of fhe above subinib< gie parties, fhe ^etition is dispos^ petitioner is granted Hberty to advised, in the Ught offhe afores{ dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/^) respondent is directed to consid€|r and in its perspective, If tlie j| footkig as per order passed by ft| in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aiid 4 Suprem.e Court ui Special Leave p< order dated 3.1.1995, tiie petiti4 reUef accordiagly. ibsion made by fhe counsel for td ofia the sarae terms Le. the |iiake a represeutatioii, if so |dd judgiEient and the cii'cular and ia tum, fhe coucenied their case on ite owit merits letitioner stand on the same |e State Adiiiinistrate Tribiinal tul^sequently confirriied by tlie fetition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by |ner may be entitled to saiae It is expected froin fhe staj order aller due scruthiy of the fac| It is made clear that fhis opiBion ou nierits of the case would be at Uberty to deckle accordance with law. ^l<4f<n<fll ^F^ff "^ f^%t iFai^K ^^tRwsn^r :e authorities to pass suitable ts. Court has not expressed aay aiid fhe authority coucemed •he representation strictly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ o