SEr». IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No:'t"'l!'0f2011 PETITIONER: \\ RESPONDENTS Gopal Das Kothware S/o Shri Amarnath Kothware, aged about 56 years, Head Maste, Govt. Middle School Badgaon, Block. Daundi Lohara, Dist- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. 'Ebe'State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) le Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, ^aipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t- "31 •^ ^ JUST W.P.(Sl.NO. 7641/2011 PBTITIOMER versus Gopal Das Xothware State of Chliattisgarb & Others Shii Rakesh Anthony, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri Yashwaiit Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. Grievaace of fhe petitioner ia fhe present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacber (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aild after coinpletion of probaUon, he was ;ranted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is that he is eiititled for regular pay scale with effect from the date /ofiaitial appoiatmenr. aad his case is squarely covered witli niiinber of decisions passed by fb.is Coiirt aad also the judginent rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribiinal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 2745/89 (Kadff.v.kem.t YdiSu. &. 56 Others Vs. Stsite ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held tliat simitarly placed teacliers are entitled for regular pay scale froiu the date of fheir miti.al appoiutiiient. It is not disputed by both the psrties fhat ftie uiatter was taken uu bv the Statc to fhe Apex Court but the aupeal was also dismissed A-< " -" by the Apex Court upholdiiig the decision ofthe TribilTial to ftie effect fhat fbe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are eatitled for regular pay scale froin ttie date of their initial appoiiitiaent. [n view of the above subinission inade by the counsel for the parries, fhe petition is disposed of in the sarne terms i.e. fhe petitLoner is grs-ated libert}- to luake a representation, if so advised, in the Ught of fhe aforesaid judgiaent and the circular dated 5.1.2Q11 (Annexure P/) aiid in tam, the concemed respoiident is du-ected to consider fheir case on its own m.erits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner stan.ds on the same footmg as per order passed by fhe State AdBlinistrative Tribunal in Madhukaut Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confiniied by the Suprem.e Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 b.y order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inay be entitled to same reUef accorduigly. It is expected froia the State authonties to pass siiitable order after due sci-utiay ofthe facts. It is inade clear that this court has not expressed anv opinion on fh.e laerits of tlie case aud ttie a.uthority concemed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly in. accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritiaker Diwaker - -Judge