Single S®nch c-^ f9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR • W.P.fS.) N0. ^^ /20I1 PETITIONER: .\^-^ ^p -.);','• ^•'^1>' •;;<!•• Chakradhar Patel S/o Shri Shiv Pi-asad Patel, Aged about 57 years, Working as Head Master At Government Primary School Katahardi, Post Office Katahardi, Via F>ussour, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^"'^ ^^" VERSUS »• RESPONDENTS -2. 3. ^" State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) District Education OfGcer, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Joint Director Treasury Accounts Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITIPN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF J'HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT JN NATURE, OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The. petitioner most hurably and respectfully begs to submit as under : 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As stated given in the cause title above. ^- 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As stated given in the cause title above. ^ ^^^s^ HIGH COCRT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB^: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PmTINKBR DIWAKER versus ShriK.P.Sahu, Shri Praveen Das, State ofC.G. & Others for the G.A. fhe State 236 OE'1 {02.09.2011( Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petition is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixcd pay scale of Rs. 130 for a period oftwo years and after completion ofprobation, hewas grattted rcgular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention offhe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regiiiar pay scale wifh effect from fhe date of initial appomtment and his case is squarely covered with. nuiaber of decisions passed by this Court aad also fhe judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Administradve Tribimal, Jabalpur in 0>A. No. 27'4S/89 plSadli.ukant YaiS.ti & SGWhers Vs. StateofX.P. & Othersjwhere in it has beeu held that similariy placed teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale from the date of their iBitial appoiiitm.ent. It ite not disputed by both the parties fhat fhe inatter was taken up by ttifc State to fhe Apex Court but the appealwas also disnussed by fbe Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision oftlie Tribunal to tlie effect that thejTeacIiers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from. fhe date offh.eir itiitial appoiatment. Jn i-iew of the above submission ma.de by fhe counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of ia the same tenns i.e. fhe petitiop.er is graated liberty to tuake a lepresentatioa, if so advised, in .«"^^^ -»vc-'v3^ S s^j^,^^ ^ tIlMii"' 'S 'i ~^y <.1' the light of ffae albresaid judgineat aD.d tbe cireular dated 5.1.2011 (Aiuiexure P/2) and in turu, the concenied respondent is directed to consid.er his case on its own nierits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footmg as per OKleF-passed by the State Administcative Tribuual in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confirmed by fhe Supreiae Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0, 6892/93 by ord.er dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner may be entitled to same reliefacconlingly. It is expected fi-om. the State a.uthorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is niade clear that this coizrt .has not expresseii any opiaion on fhe inerits of the case aad fhe autbority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd^ ?Pritinfcer Diwafear Judge