IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.^7Jpf2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS y\ A' ^' €. ft)^ .- ^, ^ V...:^F'°' ...••'' ^..•^•'""..-<"".: y'.^ "...•o'' l-".^v Jageshwar Singh Sahu S/o Late Shri, Tukaram SahiLi aged about ^^a^j^'+^-," __^ ^, ^ years, sv.^ncipal, Uovt. Hr. Sec. School B. Jamgaon, Block Balod, and Dist- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Coniniissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :....A;- /-••/r~^ ^' r^-. i "fy J •s.tv^^/^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HO BLE MR. JUSTICE.PmTINKBR W.P.|8).NO. 7738/2011 PET2TIONBR RESPONDENTs Versus Ja^eslr^ar Sragh Satiu State of Chha1:tisgarh & Otiiers Shii S.K.Thoraas, coiinsel fbr the petitk>ner. Shri Chaiidresh Shrivastava, P.L. for tlie State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 QP THB CONSTITmiON OF IHDIA ORDBR (16.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner iii the preseut petition is tliat the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Traiiiee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aiid after coriipletiou ofprobation, he was graiited regiilar pay scale ofRs, 169-300. Contentiou of the couusel for the petitioner is that lie is entitled for regular pay scale witli effect from the date / of initial appoisitBient aad his case is squarely covered wifh. nuiiiber ofdecisions passed by this Court ond also the jiidgment rendered by the M.P. State Admuiisti-ative Tribiinal, Jabalpirr m O.A. N@. 2745/89 (aSa.et.hukant Tad^. & 56 Othcrs Fs. State 0/M.P. <& Otfeers^ wh.ere iii it has been. held.. tliat smiilarly p.1aced teachers are eD.titled for regular pay scale from the date of their niitial appointtiient. It is not disputed by botli fhe pai'ties tliat the matter was taken up by tlie Sta.tc to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdnig the decision of the Tribunal to tlie effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froiii tlie date of tlieir iaitial appoiatiiiexit. In view of tlie above subBiission made by the counsel for fhe pailies, the petitio3i is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is graxited Uberty to make a representation, if so advised, in ..^s.'^ ',f" "^ i;l ^.. '^^y ^€ 1 fhe Ught of tiie aforesaid judgnient aiid the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/l) and iri tura, fhe concenied respondent is directed to consider flieir case ou its own inerits mid in. its perspective. If the petitioner staiids on the sam-e footiag as per order passed by the State Administoative Tribiinal m Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aiid subsequentiy confirmed by tlie Suprenie Couil iii Special I^eave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, Uie petitioner niay be entitled to saoie reUef accordmgly. It is expected from the State authoritles to pass suiteble order after due scnitiny oftlie fa.cts. It is niade clear tliat this court has not expressed aay opiiuon on the Bierits of fhe case aiid tbe authority concemed would be at Hberty to decide fhe representation strictJy m accordaiice witii law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge