SENELE BENQH @ ¢FIODZ (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 1S} NO.§8[g [2006 PETITIONER : / Sahdev Kumar Singh Paikara, Age about 42 years, S/o Shri Mangal Singh Paikara, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Salihabhata, Block - Kartala, Distt. — Korba (C.G.) VERSUS / 1 . Siate Government of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)_ /2. District Education Officer i.T.i., Korba (C.G.) /3. Block Education Officer Tahsii — Kartaia, Distt. — Korba (C.G.) A. Joint Director (Funds l Accounts), Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Biiaspur (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _2\ @ M HLGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. is! No. 5818 0f2006 Peu'tioner : Sahdev Kumar Singh Paikara Venus Respondents : State Govemment of Qhhattisgarh 8s othem Binge Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satbh K. Amotrl. Shn' Ajay Shxivastava, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sumit Verma, Panel lawyer for the State] respondents. ORDER (27th Octaher, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the peh'tioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide Older dated 31. 12. 1986 (Anncxure P/ 1) in the pay scale of Rs. 975 ~1650. lt is ftuther submitted'by learned counsel for the petih'oner that for the first one year the petitioner was paid only Rs. 300/— p.1n. though he was entitled to get monthly payment on the basis of Iegular pay scale dining that period. Leamed counsel for the petitioner placed mljanoe on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal passed on 24.8. 1992 in O.A.No. 2745 of89 ( Madhnkant Yadu and 56 othexs Vs. State of M.P. 8n others) and also on a decision passed on 18.2.2000 in O.A.No. 3006/ 1993 (Utam Kumar Banjari and others Vs. State of M.P. & others). In that case the petitioners were appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2640 vide order dated 29.3. 1992 but subsequently the Joint Dilector, Public Instructions, Hoshangabad passed the order that instead of payment of salmy in the regular scale of pay of @ Rs. 1400-2640 the peu‘n'oners would be paid only consolidated W sum of Rs. 800/- $r thxee years and only after threc yeam, they would be given salaxy in tbs mgular scale of pay. Learned Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Joint Director and dixected the lespondents to make payment of salary in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2640 along with all applicable allowances mm the date of appointment of the petin'oners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the question of law and the facts involved in this petition are too similar to that of in the cases cited above. Lealned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the submission made by the petitioner. For the above stated reasons the petitioner is granted hmr weeks time to make a representation before the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the same terms as per the order dated 18.2.2000 passed in O.A.No. 3006/1993 and the order dated 24.8. 1992 passed in O.A.No. 2745/ 1989. In the event the pen‘tioner stands on the same position, the petitioner is entitled to the same relietl For the reasons stated above, this petih'on is disposed of Sd/- ’l‘hakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘