BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COTfRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION s. No. {3:}? 2010 gingh’geiiai PETITIQNERS 1. / VIKeshavIaI Kushwaha, aged about 59 years, son of Late Madhavram Kushwaha, working as — Head Master, Govt Primary School — Wadrafnagar, Education Distt Ramanujganj, District Sarguja (C.G.) ‘Subhash Chand Patel, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Murarilal Patel, Working as Head Master — Govt Primary School — Shardapur (E), Education District — Ramanujgan, District — Sarguja (CG) Keshav Prasad Jayaswal, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Balli Sao, working as Head Master, Govt Primary School — Pratappur, Block Colony, Education District Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Chhotelal Gupta, aged about 59 years, S/o. Late Jagarnath Sao, working as — Head Master, Govt Primary School — Asnapara (Dahora), Education Distt. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 5‘»,U rasen Prasad Tiwari, aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Sadhucharan Tiwari, working as — Head Master, Govt Primary School Purti, Education Distt. Surajpur Distt. Sarguja (CG) Anjani Prasad Pandey, aged about 57 years, son of Shn' Ramanand Ram i3andey, working as — Head Master, Govt Primary School — Bishunpur, Education Distt. Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 7. Anirudh Prasad Dubey, aged about 55 /"' years, son of Shri Charnar Prasad Dubey, working as Head Master, Govt Primary School — Jagatpur, Distt Sarguja (CG) 8 /;,¢"f.; Ravichand Tiwari, aged about 56’years, son of Shri Gangararn Tiwari, working as Head Master, Govt Primary School Umapur, Djstt. Sarguja (CG) ,9. Thakur Narayan Singh aged about 59 r‘“ years, S/o Shri Maan Sai, working as — Head Master, Govt Primary School — WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aamgaon, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 10. Surendra Prasad Tiwari, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Kailash Prasad Tiwari, working as Head Master, Govt Primaly School — Batra, Bhaiyathan, Education Distt. Surajpur Distt. Sarguja (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 01. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 02 The Director, Lok Shikshan. Sanchalnalaya, Raipur (CG) (B Distt. Education Officer, Distt. Education — Surajpur Distt. Sarguja (CG) O$)/ Distt. Education Officer, Dist Education — Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) mmw.@.% é$4200 swamw (ma) WWW ammaw'm WWW WW wW §§3imm IEWKER DIWAKER B HOE‘BLE MR. JUSTIGE'P S RI «9 10., 910 Shri Saurabh Dailgi, couns ifor the patiiionem. Shri Vivsk Shma, PL. for Griavance of the petitfrone that the. penhonem WSm agpo ‘ irr the present petition are t‘ d as Teachers or: a tixed pay scale of Rsr 100-130 for a pe ’od of two yaars and after comple'u'on of probaiion, they wer granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the cmmsel r the petitioners is that they are entitled. for regular pay scal with effect from the date of initial appointment and their c se is squarely covereol with number of decisions passed. 'b this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. L tate Administrative Tribimal, Jabeapur moo. No. 2745189 g adhukaut Yadu e 55 others I Vs. State of M.P. 85 Gthersi w erein it has beer: held that simiiarly placed teachers are emi ed for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appoirrtme .t. e parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissecl by the Apex Court u holdirtg the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Te chars] Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale f W agnointment. 1t is not disputed by both e State. m the date of their iriitial \ o >763 b: mmfzwiah‘ wmm mmm mm<W) WW WW énimm In View of the abova submi gsion made by mo counsel for :d ofin the sme terms i.e. the ’make a representafion, if e0 aid judgment and the circular y) and in tum, The concerned 1r their case on its own meritS e1itioners stand on the same [e State Administrate Tribunal subsequently confirmed by the Petition {Civil} No. 6892/93 by 11ers mav be entitled ro same the parties, the petifion is dispose petih'oners are granted libexty to ' ‘ advised, in the Eight of the afores dateci 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/E respomient is directed to conside and in its perspective. If the p footing as per order passed by ti in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and Suprsme Court ix: Spacial LeaV€ order dated 3.1.1995, the petitic‘ relief accordin gly. It is expected from the sta order after due scrutiny of the fac Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case te authorities to pass suitable ts. It is made clear that this and the authoritv concemed. would be at liberty to decide Idle representation stxictly in accordance with law. 4 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge