@“Qg IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ?86é 0f 2011 Rainuv Ram Dhurve S/o Shri Biru Ram Dhurve, agsd about 60 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Daihan, Block Balod, Dist—Burg (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA jh HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE SB : HON’BLE MRQJUSTICE PRITINKER D1WAKER W W.P.(S!.NO. 7806/2011 PETXTIONER Rainu Ram Dhurve Vemus RESPONDENTs STate of CILhattisgarh 85 Shri S.K.Thomas, counsel for the petitionar. Sh1i§Chandrcsh Shzivastava, RL. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ofhexs ORDER (16.12.2011) Gn'evance of tho potitioncr in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainec) on a fixed pay scale of'Rs. 100—150 and aftcr completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for mgular pay scale with effect from the date / of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu £5 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachels axe entitled for legular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for mgular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representatiom if so advised, in the light of ths aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 ) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the (Annexure P/ 1 consider their case on its own men'ts and in its perspective. If the ribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and ourt in Special Leave State Administrative ’1‘ subsequently confirmed by the Supreme C Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated. 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable cider after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. on the merits of the case and sm- Pritinker Diwaker Judge y