Cff ? u> n n bo o'^ Ul -s 3 i~l -a TO -» 33 (03-+ 3- Ut "o c -3 s ? -s 8 > r>ooc: ^-^CL^"^ \ U1 <-! -H -5 u tn-+ ~j 0-+ ( 00I c m Q. -h -h r> @ -'i p rt (A £• Q- n c: I 1 -i o' o -h -h n @ -5 f -o 1= -1 "p r> n 0» -I- -s cn n 03 0 c-I *Bns I. o -§ D .-3 c> ~5 \ (-A -+. 3" y "+• Ui 10o ~s •^ '^x. \"%€^. \^^.:<^ "\^°^ ?•-. s^ y>-+ -5 0-<• 00J c: ~& 'v' "^^ s'<- "•->'v n "5 3 ro 10. o c: "3 @ -3 y Bo3 Q. o ^ o U) ^ ^fig r-s-+ c: ~3 -<• Ul ^ \ 3 o "3 0> 3" n m ^ -^ ^o >-A r K.; '."••x '(.•.••.• ^ G3 ?.'/ t*! •.../~ \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARM AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICB PRITIMKBR DIWAKER W.P.fStJtO. 5720/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDBN'RS versus Gaagadhar Survavaasbi StateofC.G.&Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UN^SRARTICT^226 OFTHE CON»TITU'HCMI OFINDIA ORDBR (26.09.20111 Grievaace of the petitioner in the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appoiated as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a penod of two years and after completion of probatioa.hc was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for fhe petitioner is tbat he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect troia ftie date of iBitial appointment aad his case is squarely covered with nuiaber of decisions passed tay this Coiirt aud also the judgnient rendered - by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0«A. No. 2745/89 pMSndhufeant YeeSu & 56 Others Vs. State OfX.P. & Otttersfwhere in it has been held fh.at similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fix?m fhe date offheir mitial appointnient. It is not dteputed by both the parties fhat fhe niatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Coiirt but fhe appeal was also disnussed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision offhe Tribunal to fhe effect that tfae Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entMed for regular pay scale from. the date oftheir uutial appointmenfc In view offtie above submission made by fhfi counscl for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is graated liberty to inake a representation, if so adviaed, ia a~^.\ tfae Ught ofthe aforesaid judgment aud the circtilar dated 5.1.2011 (Aruiexure P/2) aud ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own inerits and ia its perspective. If fhc petitioner stands on the sanie footing as per order passed by fhe State Admiuistrative Tribunal iu Madhukaut Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly con.firmed by the Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner miay be entifled to saiue reUefaccordiagly. It is expected fromi fhe State au'fhorities to pass suitablc order after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is madc clear fhat fhls court has not expressed aay opiaion on fhe nierits of fhe case and the authoritv concemed would bc at Uberty to declde the representation strictly iu accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge