J‘... ‘2‘-$ «9% BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH 'COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.‘G. smGLE men ”? w.P. (S) No é? S? 2011 /V ’I’mw PETITIONER 1. Krishna Ku-mér Sharma, S/ o Daua Prasad Sharma, Aged about r 59 years, Head Master Primary School, Sankapat, Block Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ( )/ The State Govt of Chhatttshgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, / D.K.S. Bhavan, .Raipur (C.G.) (2) District Education Officer, Bemetara District Durg C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTON OF INDIA wm'll 'I’wnmrm‘rnnrun , . RESPONDENTS 5 M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR M SB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.§SLNO. 5757i 20i 1 PETITIONER Krishna Prasad Sharma versus RESPQNDENTs State 0f Chha‘itisgarh & Aziother $1111 gomkant Verma cour S€1 €or the penfmnex Shm Praveen Das D] G A for the Shite WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 9F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA ORDER (18.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner/ in the present petition is that initially the petitioner was appoinied as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs 4000 for a penod of two Vears and after completion of probatxon he was granted regular pay scale of Rs 4000 6000 Contention of the counsei for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Comt and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur in GA. Na. 2?45/89 (Madhukant Yadu 85 56 Others Vs. State ofMJ’. &. Others) where in it has been held that Similally placed teachers are enutled for reguiar pav scale from 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 aiso dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eifect that the Teachers/Assistant Teaehers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appomtment in View of the above submissmn made bV the counsel for the parties the petition is disposed of 1n the same terms re the petltoner is-granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised; in the }ight of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.20i1 (Annexure P] 5) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its pempective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing 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 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable onier 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 suictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge