faingm mmh CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ’(S) No.7 5'9'7Of 2011 / PETITIONER: Laxman Singh Sahu S/o Shri Tetku Ram Sahu, aged about 58 years, U.D.T., Govt.Middle School, Pauwara, Block Durg, Dist- Durg. (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. @o State of Chhattisgarh, ‘Qé/ through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.("l‘he 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 9S M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $3 : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.§S!.N0. 75941 201 1 gx Shri S.K.’I‘homas, counsal for the petiu‘oner. Shn‘ Pr§veen Das, Dy. GA. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER {14.12.2011} Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed. as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after 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 regular pay scale with effect from the date [of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Couit and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jahalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (.Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular 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 Wasalso dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular 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 representation, if so advised, in, PETITIONER Laxman Singh Ssahu versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh ,,@ the light of m6 aforesaid judgment and thc circular dated 5.1.2011 (Ammxure P] 1) and in turn, the concernsd respondsnt is directed to considar their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If tbs petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed hy the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequentiy confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.0 1.95, the petitiorxer may be entitled to same relief accordingly: \$ It is expected from the State authorities t0 pass suitable order after due scrinziny of the facts. It. is made clear that this court has not. expressed any opinion L on the men'ts of the case and the authority corxcemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sdl— Prit‘mker Diwaker rm. “My Judge . ..