^ INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P.(S) No......^J.I.S:7.........2011 PETITIONER ^^ •tt? .^0""_A^ Versus RESPONDENTS (1) (2) (3) Khomlal S/o Chandulal Sahu, Age 63 Years, Retired Headniaster - Govt. Priinary School, Ainalori R/o vmage - Khapri P.0. Pouha, via - Anda Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, District Durg (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Patan, Distt. Durg. Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of m,andainus of writ/direction or any other appropriate writ. i HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justtee Pritinker Diwaker) W.P.S.No.e91Sof2011 Petitjoners Khomal Sahu VERSUS Respondent Stat@ of Chhattisgarh and others 1 ' . .^..^' Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for petitiorier. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, PLforthe State. ORDER (23.1-I.2011) Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitlon®"is a retired Head Master of School Education Department aRd has rettred on 31.12.2009. According to the petttioner, he wa® initiatly appointed as Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100/-. After completion of his probation period, he was granted reguter pay scateofRs.169-300. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submtts that the petitioner is entitl^ for regular pay scale from the date of his initjal appointment but the same has not been granted to him and his case is squarely covered by the Judgment of M.P. Stato Adminjstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274@/^ between Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and others, wherein it was held that the similariy situated teachws are entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. He further submits that the decision of Madhukant Yadu was upheld by the Supreme Court and all the sJmHariy placed teachers have been granted beneflt of regular pay seale from their jnitial date of appointment. 3. Leamed State counsel submits that lettie petttioner matee a representation to the respondent No.2 and the said authority, after scrutinizing the correct factual position, would pass appropriate orders considering the fact that as to whetherthe VJ ^ \^y^ 's;^,,^^' petitioner, who is a retired employee, is atso entttled for the said benefrtornot 4. Accordlngly the petitioner js granted liberty to make a representation raislng alt hts grievanoes in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the drcular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P/4), and in turn the concemed respondert is dtre©ted to decidethe representation, ifany, in acGordance with law, on its own merits, wtthin a period of elght weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation subject to verifjcation ofthe fa©ts. \ Priya 5. In view of the foregojng, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. j Sd/- 1 Pritinker Diwaker Judge