^ SINGLE BENCn IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSfi4RH AJ BILASPUR WRIT PETITCON (5} NO.^r'OF 2011 PETTTIONER ^- ^%^ ^.••^M^'" ^•"1^\'/Y.--'"' ••"^c^^yj-" RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^t. 2. ^4. 5. Basant Lal Sahu S/o Shri Mithai Lal Sahu, aged about 58 years, working as Head Master, ^ovt. Primary Schooi Turkadih, Block Takhatpur, bistt. Bilaspur (C.6.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, TribaJ Weifare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.} Commissioner", Tribal Weffare Department, Raipur, bistrict Raipur (C.&.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribai Welfare Department, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint birector, Treasury, accounts, pensions, Bifaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Biock Education Officer. Takhatpur, bistt. Bi'laspur (C6) WRITPETCTION UNbER AKTTCJE226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF TMhTA ^^' ^ h- HiaHLOOURT OP CHHATTISQAJRH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICB PRITXNKSR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNTs W.P.(SS.NO. 3883/2011 Basaat La]. Sahu versus State of Chhattlsgarh & Others Steri Axait Sharma, counsel for tte petitioner. ~ Shri Yashwaat Smgli Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the Slate. WMT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTITXJTXON OF INDIA ORDER (20.07.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner in tfae present petition m fbat the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher cn a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aiid after completioii of probation^ he was graated regular pay scale ofRs, 169-300. Contention offhe counsel for fbe petitioner is tfaat he is eatitied for regular pay scale with effect fironi fhe date of initial appomtjiient aad his case is squarely covercd wifh nuniber of decisioiis passed by fhis Coiirt and also the judgment rendered by tfac M.R State Administorative Tiibunal, Jabalpur in OJ^, No. 274S/89 (RSaxlhviicwtt yceda & 56 Othcrs ys* State ^fM^ A CWrhers^where m it has beea held that siimlarly placed teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale from the date offheir imtial appoiatment. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties ffaat fhe matter was takea ap by the State to the Apex Court but the appealwas also disniissed by fhe Apex Court upholdmg fhe decision offhe Tribi&nal to the eftect that fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regiilar pay scale froin fhe date offheir mitial appoiatment In vtew of the above subinission xnade by fhe coimsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed of m fhe same terms ie. tlie petitioaer is graated Uberty to xnake a rcpresentation, if so advised, m fy^^e l w^. ^. J. ^^ .J %AJ./ -^ys^^ ^--' ''^WgS^ the light of the aforesaid judgmeut and tfae circular dated 27.12.08 and in tura, the concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own merits and ia its perspective, Ifthe petitioner staads on fhe same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Admimsta^tive Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aiid subsequentty coxifirmed by the Supreme Court m Special Leave Petition (Civa) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordiagly. It is expected from fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is made clear fhat this court has iiot expressed any opmion on the ments of fhe case and the authority concemed woiild be at Uberty to decide fhe representation stdctly in accordance wifh law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge A