"^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No....€2u^^)..../.2011 PETITIONER ^'~^ ^.&..-•" Lekh Ram Patel S/o Shri Ghasiram Patel Aged 53 Years, Post Temar Tahsil Sakti District JanjgirChampa (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1)~ The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) L.... District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa( C.G.) ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTIQN OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. _.^.^L^.—-— ——--.-...-—-——- 9- HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSTICB PmTINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR W.P.(SJ,NO,60Q3J2011 Lekh Ram Patel versus RBSPONDENfTS State of C.G. &. Othcrs Shri Soimkaat Verma, coxinsel for fh.e petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy,G.A, for fhe State, WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP 'NIB eONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (11.10.2011) Grievaxice of fh.e petitioner ia flie present petition is fhat fhe petitioner was appomted as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of two years and afler completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300, Contention offhe counsel fbr the petttioner is fhat he is entifled for regular pay scale witii effect from the date of mitial appomtmeMt aad his case is squarely covered wifh nuniber ofdecisions passed by fhis Court aad also fhe judgment rendered by ffae M.P. State Admioistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A» No. 274S/S9 (RSctdhukant Yadu Ss S6 Otfeers Vs. SState e/M^ & Others^ where in it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froia fhe date of flieir iaitial apponitaient It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties tliat fhe inatter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disnxissal by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from. tlie date offheir iaitial appoiatinent In view of the above subxxussion xaade by fhe counsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia fhe same terms i.e. ffae petitioner is graated liberty to raake a representation, if so advlsed, ia ^ fhe Hght of fhe aforesaid judginent aad fhe circular dated 5,1,2011 (Annexure P/5 ) aad ia tura, the conceraed rcspoadent is directed to consider their case on its own merits aad ia its perspeotive. If tiie petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by tihe State Adxninistrative Tribunal m Madhukaat Yadu (aupra) and subsequentiy confinned by fhe Suprexxie Coiirt isi Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, thc petitioner may be entifled to same reUefaccordmgly. It is expected from fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable ordcr after due scrutiay offhe facts. It is niade clear fhat this court has not expressed any opmion on the uierits of fhe case aad fhe aufhority conceraed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation stdctiy ia accordaace wifh law» Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge