^ /~> '». L... ^.'S IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT _NQ, ^S'S /2 iiiw ^^ ^^ .•"<"v.^'' ..•••' ^.-\^f-'" ..•;'"^ ^^y^ .--•"'cy?-" ...<^ •^"..--"y i^ .-•••/V &a 2. 62 years, Wallace, Aged about S/o Late Shri i, BIock Kota, District- (c.e.5 D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) District Education Officer, District-Biiaspur (C.6.) r, (L.b. u^ ^ WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE y ,;•" '» ''%. " l;..-.^-.. 1 ?ESS!|i ^ A a. -T~s^, ^ ^.'k "V:-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASKJR SB : HOH'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITIMKER DIWAKER PBTITIOMER KES8PONDENTS W.P.tSt.NQ. 5733/2011 Tusharteant WaUace versus State of C.G. & Others Shri K.S.Pawar, couusel for fh.e petitiDna-. Sbri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT Pm'npN CMDBR JMR.TICLE 226 OP THB CONSTITUTIOW OFINDIA ORDER (26.09.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner ui fhc peesent petition is that fhe petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of taro years aad after coinplction of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Coutention offhe coiuisel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect froin the date of initial appointiuent aad his case is squarely covered wifh nzunber ofdecisions passed by this Court aad also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 274S/89 (aSaMutktmt Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofSS.P. & Others^where la it haa been held that smularly placed teachers are entitled for reguiar pay scale from. fhe dste of their uutial appouitiuent. It is uot disputed by both the parties fhat ftie niatter was takBU up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dasmissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision ofthe Tribuiial to the effect that the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled for icgular pay scale jfroni fhe date of fheir initial appointment. In view of fhe above subinission naade by fhe counsel for thc parties, fhe petition is disposed of m fhe same tenus i.e. ttie petitionM- is graated Uberty to make a representation, if so advised, in ^IMIIIT^^Bii .;;^ g fhe Ught of thc aforesaid judgment and fhe circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) and in tura, fhe concemed respondent is directed to coasider fh.eir case on its own inerits aad ia its perspective. If the petitioner stands on thc sanue foofing as per order passed by the State Admmistrative Tribiiual in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequenUy confinned by the Supreiae Court in Special Lcave Petition (CvriS) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inaybe entitled to same relief accordiagly. It is expected fix>m fhe State auftiorities to pass sixitable ordcr after due scrutiny offhe facte. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinioa on fhe inerits of fhe case and fhe authority concemed would be at Uberty to decMe fhe representation stoictiy in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge (?f'iiR^^r^