'-</ (3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)No. ^V0''^ /2011 « PETITIONER ('' iV ^w.'- ^y.^ <3^^ >:'^" .-^'l •<^^'?py./< RESPQNDENTS Smt. Radha Shukla, W/o Chandramaprasad shukla Age about- 54 years, Occupation- service, Head master, Goverment High school,Katghora, Block Katghora,District- Korba(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through- the Secretary, Department of trible wetfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ~ The Commissioner,Trible Welfare Department,Korba. 3.' District education Officer, District- Korba(C.G.) 4. Block education Officer, Katghora, District- Korba(C.G-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OFJNDIA TJlP- nel'i^ V.IQH COCRT OP CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Siut. Radha Shukla State of C.G. & Otbers Appearaace; Sbri Andt Sbanna, cour..sel for tbe petitioaer. Shri Kisnore Bliaduri, Addl. A.G. for thc State. Grievance of tiie petitios.er ia ftie present petition is that Ae peutiouer was appoiiited as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scsie of Rs. 100 for a period of two years snd after coiuplefcioa of probatioii, she was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 16S-240. Co&teiition of the co-iiasel for fhe oetitioner is that she is entitied for regijlar pay scale with effect irom. the date of inrdal appoiiitinent aad his case is squarely cov'ered wita auiaber of decisions passed by th-is Court aad also the judgiaent readered -oy the M.P. State AdBiinistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia 0«A. No. 2745/89 SSSsiS.Huko.nt Va&v. Ss 56 Ctthers Vs. Steste of M.P. & Ofehers/where ia it has been held fliat siinilarty nlaced teachers are enlitled for regular pay scale froia 'i.lie datc of tbeir iaitial appoiG.tm.ent. •^ It 5s not disputed bv bofll ta.e •parties tb.at the inatter was takcn \ up by tbe State to ttie Apex Court but the appeal was also disinissed \ by the Apex Cozirt upholdiag fhe declsion of fhe Tdbunal to tbe effect \ fhat fhe TeacIi.e:rs/Assistant Teach.ers are entifled for regular pay ^cale froin. the date of their initial appoiatm.ent. y.f In view of tlie above su'binission inade bv tbe coiuisel for 'the parties, the petitioB is disposed of in tfae saiue tenns ie. the petitioner is graiited liberty to make a representation, ifso advised, in the light of the aforessid judgm.e.n.t and the circul&r dated 27.12.09 (Annexure P/ 2) and in taru, the conceraed respondect is directed to consider tlieir case oa its own nierits aad ia its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe sam.e footmg as per order pa.ssed by tbe State Adia'in.istra.tive Tribunal ia Madhukar.t Yadu (silpra) ai'id subsequently confirmed by the Supreine Court iji Specisl I^eave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by orier dated 03.01.95. the pentioner inay be eutitled to same relief accordin.ely. It is expected frois. fhe State a.uthorities to pass suitable orcler after due scnitb.lv ofthe facts- It is m.ade clear that this court has not expressed aay opuiion on th.e ir^erits of the ca.se and the aufcorifc'," concenied. would be at Uberty to decide the representation strictly in accori.aace with law. Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker Judge ^t