'»^; \ R> IA T3c: -3 rt -+ n-+o T o 8c3-(• '^^•^ c: I —t- 1 0 c -5 ^ v ^ -5 rt oro ~s 00 Ui-+ -3 o o o3 -h -h n ro ~5 (A -o c n m^. -3 c: ^ cn S I d"a 1 o "CT c: ~3 /•"s -5 oe 10 3- VI n -5i (-A 1 n o u> 10o "5 -°. -S '•3s i^\v^ _\ %"••. ^. ^'^ ^'\ '^\ s>\¥\^ $\¥' -i£ m tnn -+ -s r> I c: ~3 i*~s (i^ 3 l' on bs Oi-(- ~s r re -3 3 Q. &. ra •-»- o o @I "+ 3" c n 3 g 63- c t0 Q. 0_ V 6c-+ (f-o m z 'J^ ^ ^x> ^ oo ^ \- iUtW* n ^ -^ £y~o 8 \ ^ J HIOH COUItT OF CHHATTISOJUeH AT BIIASPOR SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICE KRITmKBR DIWAKBR W.P.iSt.NO. S73S/20J.1 Kheinnath Saliu RESPONDBNTS versus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fh.e State. WRIT PETITION UMDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITOTION OFIMDIA ORDER (26.09.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in tfac present petitioa is that fhe petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed yy scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad aftcr conapletion of probation, hewas granted regularpay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention offhe counsel for fb.e petitioner is that he is eatitled for regular pay scalc wifh efFect from the date of initial appoiatment aad his case is squarely covered wifti number af decisions passed by ttus Court aad also fh.e judgiaent rendered by fhe M.P. State Admiiustrative Tribxmal, Jabalpur ia O^. No. 2T4S/89 ptodtottfcdnt yudu & S60thers Vs. Steete ofSS.P. & Othersf-where in it has bccn held fhat sirmlarly placed teacheis are entitled for regular pay scale from fhe date offheir iiutial appoiutinent. It is not disputed by bofh the parties that the matter was taken up by ti^e State to the Apex Court but fhe ap^»alwas also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision ofthe Tribuiial to the efiect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are cntifled for regular pay scale firoui tfae date oftheir mitial appoiatment In view of the above submission made by fhe couasel for the .pardes, fhe petition is disposed of in the same terms ie. fhe petitioner is graated Uberty to inake a representation, if so advised, ia li .„, the Ught of the aforesaid judgnient aad thc circuJar dated 5.1.2011 (Atmexure P/2) aad in tum, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consuler their case on its owa aierits aad in its perspective. If fhe petitioner stauds on the saine footing as per order passed by fhe State Admuustrativc Tribuual in Madhukant Yadu (sui»a) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Suprexne Court ia Special Leave Petitiea (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entifled to same reUefaccortUagty. It is expected finia fhe State aufhorities to pass suitAle order after due scrutiny oftfae facts. It is made ctear fhat fhis court has not expressed any opinion on the nierits of the case and the aufcorily coacemed would bc at liberty to decide fhe representation sbicUy in accordaace vnQi law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge