^-y^ 1.r^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^ OF 2011. (, PETITIONER ^y cr^yy <p^^ ^ RESPONDENTS / Manohar lal Sinha, S/o. late Shri Sukul Ram Sinha, aged about 55 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Sounga, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS ': 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhaintari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) $.(A ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PmTINKBR DIWAKER W.P.JS).N0.6959/2G11 PBTITIOHBR RESPONDBNTs versus Maaohar Lal Sialia State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Somkaat Verma, couiisel for the petitioner, Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the Stete. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE COMSTITUTIO^ OF INDIA ORDER (24.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petition is that the petitiouer was appointed as Deputy Teacher 011 a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completioii of probation, he was graated regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention offhe counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with eflect froin tlie date of initial appointoient and his case is squarely covered with nuinber ofdecisions passed by this Coiirt and also fhe judgnient rendered by the M,P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir isi O.A. No. 274S/89 (SIct&hukant Ycidu Ss 56 Offecrs Vs. State ofM.P. Ss Others/where in it has been held that sixailarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froia the date of fheir iaitial appointment, It is not disputed by both the parties that the inatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect tliat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni the date of their iiiitial appoiatiuent. In view of the above subiuission made by fhe counsel for the parties, the petitioa is disposed of ia fhe saiae terms i,e, the petitioner is graated liberty to make a representation, tf so advised, in ^ fhe Mght of fhe aforesaid judgraent and the circular dated 5,1.2011 (Annexure P/5) and ia tiim, the concemed respoudent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits aiid in its perspective. If tlie petitioner stands on the same footmg as per order passed by the State Admuiistrative Tribunal in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confinned by the Suprenie Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entifled to saase reUef accordiagly. It is expected from. fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after diie scnitiny of the facts, It is inade cleai' fhat fhis court has not expressed a&y opixiion on fhe merits of th.e case and flie authority concemed would be at Mberty to decide the representation stricfly ia accordanice witti law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge