6) &v aa § t Wm IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘FI56ARH AT BILASPUR W.P. $ NO. PETITIONER :1. / RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA { Z /2011 nbhu Lal LaThiya, S/o Shri Nm‘Thu Lci, aged about 57 years, High School, Sakreli (B), Block— Sak‘ri, Dis‘r’r.— Janjgir—Champa (C.G.). Lecfur‘er, Gov‘r. S’ra‘re of ChaT’risgar‘h, h Through — School Education Deporfmen’r, D.K.S. Bhowan, Raipur, Dish‘. - Raipur (C.G.) District EducaTion Officer, Disff.-Jonjgir-Chompo CG.) Block Educafion Officer, Sak’ri Block—Sak‘ri, DisH.-Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) The Secrer‘y, m g \w /. ?Y\ $o MM W g ....... WM.‘ ‘?<ee ..& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.(S).N0. 662 1/201 1 PETITIONER Sambhu Lal Lathiya Versus State of C.G. 8r, Others Shn’ Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for ths petitionar. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS OF INDIA oRnER (14.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petiu'oner was appointed in the year 1976 as Assistant Teacher on a nxed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 for a period ‘of two years. After completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169~ 300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect hem the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passe by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fmm the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the etfect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the par'u’es, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the TITUTION d petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if soadvised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Amexure P/4 ) and in turn, the concemed respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same foou'ng as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 0301.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is ékpected from 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 the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. w Jr?” i Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge ‘