IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Sl No.y^/^011 PETITIONER: ,.:"y. Labha Ram Tengwar S/o Late. Shri Phenkuram Tengwar aged about 54 years, presently working as Lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Aramsahi Block- Masturi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS y RESPONDENTS: 1: 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through: - Secretary, Department ofEducation Mantralaya, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 3^ The Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Aramsahi Block- Masturi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. r —^^,^ •^l COURT OP CHHATTESGAKH AT BILABPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB Pm-TINKBR DIWAKER W.P.IS'l.NO. 7756/2Q11 PETITIOKER RESPONDBNTs versus Labha. Ra.ni Tesigi^ar Staxe of Chhattisgarh & Otliers Shri Ashwaiii Shukla, couusel fbr fhe petitioner. Shri N.NaIia Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION XJHDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDSA ORDER 116.12.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner ia the present petition is tliat tb-e petitioner was appointed as Assistaiit Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after conipletion of probation, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Coutention of tlie counsel for the petitioner is tliat she is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froni th.e date of mitial appoiiitnient and his case is sc|iiarely covered with ni.rmber of decisions passed by this Court aad also tlie judgHieut rendered by tiie M,P. State Adsnniistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in. O^A. N^. 274S/89 (Metdhtikant YwSxi Ss 56 Others Vs. SteKte ©fM.P. Ss Qthcr^} where ia it has been held that similaxly placed teachers are entitl.ed for regTilar pay. scale fs'ora the date of liieix' iiiitial apporatinent. It is not dispiited by both the pai'ties that the matter was takcn up by tlie State to tlie Apex Court. but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribiinal to tlie effect. that tlie Teachex's/Assistant Tea.chers are entitled for regular pay scale from. the date of tlieir iiiitial appo:bitixieB.t. In view of the above subisiission made 'by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of io. the saine terais i.e, fhe 1 i, ..•.""%„•• •^ '^ ^K^m 1 ^'^' 2--Z- petitioner is graiited Kberty to raake a representation „ if so advised, ia tlie light of the aforesaid judgsaent and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) aiid ia tuin, the concemed respondent i% drrected to consider their case on its own nierits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner staxids on the saiae footing as per orcier passed by the State Adniin.isti'ative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) axid subseqziently coBfsrmed by tlie Supreme Court iti Special Lcave Petitiou (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95.. tlie petitioner may be entitled to saine reUef accordhigly. It is expected from the State a.uthorities to pass siiitable order after due scnitisiy oftlie facts. It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed any opioion on ttie merits of the case aiid the authori.ty coxiceroed woiild be at Mbei^ to decide fhe representetion stdctly in. accordaoce witJi law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^/