«> ^s / 1N THE HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.^.Q^ OF 2011 PETmONER Amar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Manohar Lal Rathore, a9ed about 51 years, Post of Upper Division Teacher, working as Govt. Middie School, Amokhokhra, Block Podi- Uproda, Distt. Korba (CG) RESPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. Stote of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribat WeSfare Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] :).}•• 2. Commissioner, Tribaj Welfare Department. Raipur (C.G.) , .^.w^wr ^<.»',<a^, ^^Xn \^y~'. .oN v 3- r^ Assistant Commissioner, Tribol ^y. ^c^'.-' ^ .^ ,v Welfare bepartment, Korba 4. Block Education Officer, Biock Podi-Uproda, Dsstt. Korba (CG) 5. " Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District BiEospur (C.6.) WRIT PETITEON UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE • CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA 1 i,^^i%^ l^^sp rK£l ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PMTINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBRS RE8PONDBNTS W.P.ISt.NO. 6089/21011 Amar Siagh Rathorc versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Axnit Kumar Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTniQN UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDER (12.10.2011) Gnevaace of fhe petitioner in fhe present petition is fhat fhe petitioner was appomted as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years aad after completion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs, 169-300, Contention offhe counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entiUed for regular pay scate with efFect from fhe date of iaitial appoiatment aad his case is squarely covered witibi niimber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also fhe judgment rendered by fhe M.P* State Administeative Tribimal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 ftSaidhukein.t Yadu & 56 CMS:hers Vs< State o/BS.P^ & Others/where in it has been held fhat siuularly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froia fhe date of fheir mitial appoiatment. It is not disputed by both fhe partles that the inatter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision offhe Tribunal to fhe efFect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froin the date offheir imtial appointoient. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the pardes, fhe petition is disposed of in fhe saxae terms i.e. fhe petitioner is granted Uberty to make a representation, if so advised, in ' A fhe Ught of fhe aforesaid judgnxent and the circular dated 27.12.08 aad ia tura, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own merits aad in its perspective. If fhe petitioner staiids on fhe same footmg as per order passed by the State Adxnuiistrative Tribuual m Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petltioiier may be entttled to saaie relief accordingly. It is expected frora fhe State auth.orities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny offhe facts. It is made clear that fhis court has not expressed aiiy opiaion on fhe merits of fhe case aad fhe authority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation stricfly ia accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge