ro 3 c: -I ron-+ o -3 ^ 5'1ua E:~s r>ftb (n-+^n o c ~! •Si ^.-%,\» J v ^&^ ii a \ ~'*~^. < ^ ^'y... ^"y^'-sji "i / _^' // 'L>;\ "''y- "^ "^' .^ ^ '^" /^; '%yit' "-9. ^y -h -h n -j- ~s n-(• 1 n '^^ssss^'"' Cd \ o' tn-+ ~s n o n c: ~s -o c: CT n M n-t- fh n -3 8 ro s -3 cas (-* \ D-+ TO p-h o <n tOo -5 ^\^ n tn -+ -j u» -p •"s o y> r>3- oo o3 & IE:u» 3- a. 8 @ ~5 Q ro (fl "3 o \ ro ~5 g:1 ?r 10 ro ^ 0' o ? 3 S. ^^^ oa ^ \ ^ c» w r— I h» ^•'., ••A HIGH COURT Or CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB nRITIHKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RESPQNDBNTS W.P.(S».N0.5S?8/20l;t Manishanker Kaushik versus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Sttri K.S.Pawar, couasd. for fhe petitiorter. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State, WMT_Pm'|TIpNCNDBRAKraCLB2a6^0FTlIBCOBnSTITDTIOII QFnroiA ORDBR (21.09.2011) Gricvauce of fhe petitioncr ui the piesent petition is fhat fhe petitioner was appoiated as Dy. Teacher on a fixed psy scaQe of Rs. 100-150 fcr a period of two years aad after coinpletion af probaticwi, he was granted icgular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention offhe couusel for the petitioner is tiaat he is enttflcd for regular pay scale with effect froni the date of iaitial appoititnienst aud hls case is squarely covered with nuinber of decfeions passcd by this Court and also the judgment rcndcred by fhe M.P. State Adnuaistrative Tribuxial, Jabalpur in OJL No. 2745/89 fSSaitth.w.kemt y<a(u & 56 Otfaers ys. State ofW.P. Ss Othersfvrhere m it has beea Iield that similarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale 6'om fhe date offheir JTiitinl appointmenfc It is not disputed by both fhe parties that ttue matter was taken up by the State to thc Apex Court but thc appcal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision offhe Tribuaal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regiflar pay scate froia fhe date offheir itdtial appointment. In view of fhe above aubmissioa laade by the counsel for fhe partfes, the petition is disposed of ia the same terms i.e. fhc petitioner is granted liberty to niakc a representation, if so advteed, in fhe Ught of fhe aforesaid judgment and the circuJar dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aad ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own Baerits aad in its perspectfve. If fhe petitioner staads on the saaie footm^ as per order passed by fhe State Adnmustrative Tribunal in Madhiikant Yadu (»upra) and subsequently confinaed by the Supreiae Court in Sp«;ial Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.99, the petitioner inay be entlUed to saine reliefaccordtagly. It is expected from fhe State aufhorifies to pass suitable order after due scrutmy of the facts. It is made clear that fhis court has not expressed any opiaioa on the merits of fhe case aad fhc aufhority conceracd would be at Ube^ly to decide the representation strictty iu accc»laneewith law. Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker Judge ^ f .