s c IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. PETITIONER ^A' ^^^- .••-•'""t^?»\" -.•••'"" ^y^^\r^ RESPONDENTS W.P. (S) No.....:7.^—:1...2011 ^Kedar Nath Vishwakarma S/o Shri Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Aged about 56 Years, Head Master Primary School Polmi Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) (2) Asistant Comniissioner Tribal Departraent Korba District Korba(C.G.) l WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR ^ MANDAMUS/DIRECTION QF OTHER APPROPRIATE WR!T, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL.^PUR ^"yi>r 'as1 ty?E? ^vf<s:!Tt'sf^'ci 'QWrTV\ r. ^VO j£A^^j&f versus Kedar Nath Vishwakarma State of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri ShashankThalcur, P.L. for the State. (02.12.2011) Grievaace of tbe petitioner in fhe present petition is that fh.e petitioner was iiutially appoiiited as Assistaiit Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, he was granted regTtlar pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention oftbe counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect fFoin the date of iaitial apponitinent scnd his case is squarely covered with nnmber of decisions passed by tbis Court and also fhe judgnient reudered by fhe M.P. State Admimstrati.ve Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274S/89 ^acu&h.u.ka.ttt Stadu & 56 Others Vs. Sfxite ofK.P. Ss Others)-vv1iere in it has been held that simUarly placed teachers are entitled for reguiar pay scale from the date of th.eir initial appomtoient. It ia not disputed by bofh. tlie parties fhat fhe raatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex .Court but the appeal was also disinissed by fhe Apex Court upholding ftie decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect ti3.at the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin the date of their initial appointiaent. In view of fhe above subinission ina.de bv fhe counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of in fhe same terms i.e. fhe petitioner is gtanted Uberty to inake a lepresentation, tf so advised, ia the light of the aforesaid judginent and the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/5) and ui tum, fhe concemed respcndent is directed to consider his case on its own nierits and in its perspective. If the petitioaer stan.ds on. fhe sam.e footing as per order passed by flie State Adm.inistratiye Tnbiinal ia. Madhukaiit Yadu (supraj aiid subsequeiitly confinaed by the Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inay be entifled to same reliefaccordiagly. It is expected froin the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitinv offhe facts. It is ina.de clear that this court has not expressed aay opinion on fhe merits of fhe case and the aufhority concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge