PETITIONER - k ( $ ifémGLE BEWH akhan Ram (Singh) Jurri, S/o. Lufe Thanwar' Ram Jurr‘i, aged about 5O year's, Upp’er‘ Division Teacher, post cf Govt Middle School Udkuda, Dis‘r’r. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS :1. RESPONDENTS Stofe of Chhof‘risgarh Through :— The Secretary, School Educo’rion / Tribal Welfare Deparfmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (6.6.) Disiricl Educa‘rion Offiéer, Kanker, Dish‘. Kanker (C.G.) 2. Assis’rom‘ Commissioenr, Tribal Welfare Department, DisTT. Kanker (6.6.) Treasury, Accoun’rs and Pension, Kanker, Disff. Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE H ‘ CONsTITuTION OF INDIA. {l //, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(5) No. 5%‘6 /2o1o Wmm WWW WWW amifmm SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITIICKERVD!WAKER 25.1 1.2010 Shri Anil Singh Rajput, cemnsel for The petitioner. Shn' Vaibhav Goverdhan, 1: .L. for the Stiate. Grisvance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed at; Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100450 for a period of two yams and after completion of probation, he was ranted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contennon of the counsel for the peuuoner 1s that he 1s enutled for regular pay scale eEect from the date of mltlal appomtmem and his case ls sq alely covemd wxth number of dec1s10ns passed hv th1s Court d also the Judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admtmstranve ribunal’ Jabalpur 1n G.A. No. 2745189 (Madhukant Yadu & 6 Others Vs. state of M.P. 6; Others) wherein it has been hel that (similarly ylaced teachers are entitled for regular pay s n‘om the date of their mmal appointment. It is not disputed by both parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Ape Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court pholding the decision of the ’l‘Iibunal to the ed‘ect that the T chem/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale appointment. \ the date of their mmal .i/ w: o . e m WWNQ@?N&Q7W 92m mm (Wu) WWW wmm Wmwma‘f‘i‘s‘fgéw mmm ammm In View of the above su ion made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is dispo of in the same terms Le. the petitioner is granted liberty to a representation, if so advised in the light of the afoxe _'d judgment and The circular dated 27 12 2008 and m tum, the concerned respondent is directed to cons1der thexr case n Its own merits and 1n its perspective. If the peutioner on the same fooung as per oxder passed by the State} A uate Txibunai in Madhukam Yadu (supra) and subsequentl connrmed by the Supreme (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order y be entitled to same relief Court in Special Leave Petition dated 3.1.1995, the petitioner accordingly. It is expected fmm 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 merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representau'on strictly in accordance with law. ' ~. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge b " s s e s s d s a