§""us§§€ g$3§¢giw é" i 5} [VI a { IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(syNo. ézgé 12011 Shep I (f7 PETITIONER Shiv“ Sevak Kashyap S/o ‘ Shri Sukhau Ram Kashyap, aged about 60 years, Occupation Service, Posted ‘oyx as Head Master Primary School Q Bharatpur, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur C.G. ‘* VERSUS K RESPONDENTS , 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary School Education Department _, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. / 2. The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. f3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF, AN N THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONIORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. C APPROPRIATE VWRIT I W HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.(S).NO. 6296 I201 1 PETITIONER Sheo Sewak Kashyap versus State of C.G. & Others Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' A.V. Shridhar, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER {21.10.2011) Grievance of the petju'oner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a nxed 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 is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with eEect from the date of m1t1al appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State ‘ Administran've Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant 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 mm the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parn‘es 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 the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in /€ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annaxurc P/ 2 ) and in tum, the concerned respondent is dimcted to consider his case on its own melits and in its perspective. If the peu'tioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Txibunal in Madhukant Yadu (supla) and subsequently connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Peu'tion (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by onier dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected n‘om 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 would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. i Sdl- i t Pritinker Diwaker 1 Judge