c^^ IN THE HON'BLE HICtH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St No. ^^/2010 PETITIONERS %^-^ ^^s^ <^^ ^&fs^ ^.%^ ' *9<.'-"- RESPONDENTS: 1. Lakhan Lal Banjare S/o Shri Awadh Ram Banjare , aged abput 53 Years, occupation Head Master, in Govt. Middle School Bhaisamuda Block Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Shivcharan Tamre S/o Shri Heera Ram Tamre, aged about 56 Years, occupation Upper Division Teacher, in Govt. Middle School Bhaisamuda Block Kartala, Distt. Korba(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir, (C.G.) 2.<^Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Raipur District Raipur ^(C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Kbrba District Korba (C.G.) WRTT UNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA I-HC-22 "s'sr'•qFlRTT.'s^itwre. l«i<ni'Hy 3TT^9T tRrg? IIICTI a)*li«h't£?"-"f-"(^>"""/i:3^^ 2fl0 {(& lcKicyar' sn^i-^t Ki-ii'* 3^1 ^•Hl^^lftd ^ 3II^T ^.RIRIT ^fef SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRltlNKBR DrWAKBR 04.13.2010 Shri Ajay Kumar Barek, ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. for cou^isel fbr the petitioners. tU.c State. Grievaace of fhe petitioners ic petitionera were appointed as pav scale of Rs. 100-150 for a p|< coflipletion of pnibation, they wen^ Rs. 169-300. fn fhe present petition is fhat ftssistaat Teacbers on a fixed jeriod of two years and after granted regular pay scale of c^se Contention of the counsel fd are entifled for regular pay scale] irutial appouitment aad fheir nuiaber of decisfons passed bj judgment rendered by fhe M.P. Jabalpur m O.A. No. 2745/89 Vs. State of M.P. & Others) w^ siaularly p]aced teachers are the date oftheir initial appomtme4t ¥* It is not disputed by both t^i taken up by the State to fhe Apex disinissed by the Apex Court uj Tribunal to tbe effect fhat fhe Te4< entitled for regzilar pay scale appoiatment. : lqit^f?l^'T 'RT^ff ^ 'fe^ <f^^K i;3)POT 3)1^51 ^r the petitioners is that they wifh eflFect fbom fhe date of is squarely covcred witfa thjs Court aad also the ^tate Admmlstrative Tribunal, l^adhubaat Yadu & 56 Others lerein it has been heM that for regular pay scale fi-om entilled pardes that the niatterwas Sourt but the appeal was also >holdiag the decisioa of tbe ;hers/Assistaut Teachers are thc date of tbeir initial j6fc>iu In view of fhe above submiteion rswAe by fhe counsel for fhe^parties, the petition is disposed ofin ffae same tcrms iei'BSief' 3%. t,'-i. ..^•.^.=-. "<BT •Ljr'' "• v^s"'^^s^. ^l-HL^L ^ ':-^r'^^^& ^3 ^ 'ty^/~ '•^SXi--^^ ^sr »i|[i|id<<, dTflti'lii. (qwi'tfy 3ii^?r 'q=ra? <iWW 8)<flq» "^ 200 •fa^r' SII^I'^I WM an^i shiiti ^ifia 1. sii^r ^aiwBfta fle petitioners are graated Uberty to advised, in the Ught of the aforesai(l dated 27.12.2008 and in tum, directed to consider fheir case ort perspective. If fhe petitioners staa( order passed by the State Adininis^r Yadu (supra) and subsequently Coiirt in Special Leave Petition (( dated 3.1.1995, fhe petitionera m^ accordingly. itiake a reprcsentati&n, if so judgment and tiie circiilar concerued respondent is its own merits and ia its on the same footing as per Tribunal ia Madhukant :onfirmed by the Supreine ^ivS) No. 6892/93 by onler 4y be entitled to same reUef strate It is expected frosi the state order after due scrutiny ofthe factq It is naade clear that tlus opmioa on inerits of fhe case would be at Hberty to decide tt( accordance with law. tt>l<4[d'illTI •lffH?il'^ f^%^ '<Fif-(^t< ^T 3lp(T>T 3IT^I authorities to pass suitable C]ourt has not expressed any a^id the authority concemfid representation strictly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge :-fl^^!1 ,