IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NSW {a 0f 2011 / Pila Lal Gandre S/o Shri Bisa Lal Gendre, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Chandanbirhi,Block—Gunderdehi, Dist— Durg (C.G.) VERSUS v’RESPONDENTS : 1. ,Thé State of Chhattisgath, through the Secretary, School A Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, //Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W @j 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTE$GARH AT EILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUS’HCE E’RKTENKER DlWAKEjj w,?.gs3.mo. M10; 291 1 ¥ETITIONER Pila Lal Gandi‘e VEYSHS State of ChhattiSgarh fir, Othsrs Shri S.K.Th0mas, counsel fer the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. AG. for the State. WRIT PETITION tmDE’R ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNs'nTu'rmN OF INDIA RESPONDENTS ORDER (08.12201 13 Gn'evance of tha petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after completion of probation, he was granted. regular pay scale of Rs‘ 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with eofect from the date of initial appoinunent and his ease is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment; rendered. by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (M'adhukant Yadu 85 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale £ron1 the date of their initial appointment. lt is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken 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 ihe date of their initial appointment. ln View of the above submission made by the counsel for the ‘partiesy the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the v petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in 1 @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the Circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concenled 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 Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03,01,95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected mm the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned wouid be at. liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. r Sd/_ Pritinker Biwakar Judge