IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' w. P. (S) No. g‘WE OF 2010. PETITIONERS /:1. Jouhar Singh Thakur, S/ o. late Shri Bhaktu Ram Thakur, aged about 48 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Ratesara, Block- Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) Shekh Galib Quraishi, S/o. Shekh Jamil Qurajshi, aged about 51 years, Upper i Division fifeacher, Govt. Middle School Khartha, Block- Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) /3. Sada Ram Patel, S/o. Shri Ram Gulal Patel, aged about 48 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Girhola, Block—Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh‘, Through : The Secretary, :Tribal Welfare Department, Digs; Bhawan, Rajpur (c. G.) 3% . V "//. / @; Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kariker (C. G.) Block Education Offrcer, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) ,4. Treasury Ofiicer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) t WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' W 3E: W, WW, W W].m W FQ3MW5£ 200 WW (Wu) mmw WWW WWW WM %Q?W ‘ésai‘mm 20. 10.2010 s in the present petitioner are that in tha yaar 1981, they werc fixed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 for completion of probation, they We: Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel : entitled for regular pay scale wit] appointment and his casc is sql decisions passed by this Court a by the MP. State Administrative ’ 2745/89 madhukant Yadu as as others Vs. State of M3. a Others) wherein it has been held are entitled for regular pay seal appointment. It is not disputed by both 1 taken up by the State to the Ape) dismissed by the Apex Court 1 Tribunal to the effect that the Te entitled for regular pay scale 1 appointment. L. for the State. Grievance of the petitioner appointed as Dy. Teacher on a a period of two years and after .~e granted regular pay scale of ‘or the petitioners is that he is i eifect from the date of initial rarely covered with number of 1d also the judgment rendered Fribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. that similarly placed teachers i from the date of their initial he parties that the matter was Court but the appeal was also ipholding the decision of the achers] Assistant Teachers are from the date of their initial Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P XI-HC 78 WWW ammm WWwP/WM% oo LO WW (Win) WWW ' nVleW the parties? the patition is dispossd of in the samc terms ia. the pstitioners are granted liberty t etitioners stand on the same footing as per order passed by e State Administxate Tn‘bunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petinon (Civil) No. 6892] 93 by order dated 3.1.1995, the peti' ners may be entitled to same relisf accordingly. It is expected from the st order after due scrutinv of the facts. make a representation, if so advised, in. the light of the afore aid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexum PI ) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consiti r thetr case (m its own merits and in its perspective. If the Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge mmtwm eaif‘awanéw * ate authorities to pass suitable