-+ J" o "Tf § ta n -I- •lil^ g- in t!c:-s \\ / ^•^ 0 co -h -tl n0 ~s w-+ "5 q. -3 /"*ll ~? 03 3 y ul " 0 ."t- --i- E <^1 -+ oyin n o -0c -3 r> -§ n ? 's ^ ? ^ M' <n 3 <»/ (^ i'f •<L -$ "•? ^ . ', \.\^ 'v^&x^ '•••.. '^^ ^o-^ ^••..^ ^\t^ ^\^-' Ui 3" o sr s. ^ § 0' \ "' 3 5~ 3 '^•-32. "O 5' o a. ? s o n. T. -5 ^ ro n o P 'tit Q. ^ § "3 .~5 3 N \f\ ^ ^ \t; r-, tS <<£S <^ ^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATnSOARH AT BILASPUR 8B :JION'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITHiKBRiaWAKBR W.P.ISI.HO. 5S95/2011 PBTITIONER RESPONDBMTS versus Idaram Bhardwaj State of C.G. & Ottiers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioncr. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IKDIA OKDER (21.09.2011) Grievaace of the petitioncr ia the preseait petitma is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Dy. Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a pcriod of two yeais and after coiaptetion of probation, hc was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe coujusel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entifled for regular pay scale with effect ftova. fhe date of mitial appointment aad his case is squarely covered witii niunber of decisions passed by fhis Court aud also ttie judgment rendered by thc M.P. State Administeative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0*A. No. 274S/S9 (ll&uUtufcant Yadu & S6 Otfters 7s. State ofSS.P. & Wheiv) where ta it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date offheir uutial appointtaent. It is not disputed by both fhe parties fhat the laatter was talsen up by fhe State to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed •by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision ofthe Tnbimal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale finm. fhe date of fheir iuitial appointment. In view of fhe above subnussion made by fhe coiiasel for the parties, the petition is disposed of ia the saiae terms i.e. fhe petitioner te granted liberty to laake a icpresentation, tf so advised, in F~~ fhc l^ht ofthe aforesaid judgment and fhe cucular dated 5.1,2011 (Annexure P/2) and in tum, thc concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective, If thc petitioner stands on fhe saiue footing as per order passed by the State Adiniiustrative Tribiuial in Madhiikant Yadu (supra) aiid subsequenfly confinned by the Supreme Court in Special Leavc Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitiomr may be entitled to same reliefaccordingty. It is expected fium ftie State authoritics to pass suiteble order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is inade clear that this court has not, expresscd any opiaion on fhe inerits of fhe case and fhe auffaority concerued wouM be at liberty to decide the representation stdctly ui accordance with tew. Sd/- Pritinker Judge