r 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.) N0. T^^ ^ /201 1 PETITIONER ^^ ^ . ' \'^'t'..--\. €^-^ <^;,^^N \^ €<• ^- VERSUS ^ Dhoba Ram Saral S/o Satrughan Saral, aged about 63 years, Retired Headmaster, Village Lara, Post Kodapali, Block Pusour District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ' ^i p w^ \ rj.^[5""/J /f/^ ~ -,i!^ /'/ ? ^'\ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Diretor Treasury Account and Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. ^ The District Education Officer, Raigarh Distt Raigarh (C.G.) y 4. Block Education Officer, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : HIGH COURT OP CHHATTgSGARH AT BILASPUR SB :HON>BLB»iR.,JUSTICE,PRITIWKERDIWAKBR W.P.ISl.NO. 777S/201.1 PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNTs Versus Dhoba Rain Saral State of ChhattisgM'li & Others Shri Dhani Raai Patel, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri Bliaskai' Pyasi, R L. for tlie State. 1P^ITJPBTIT10H,UNDERARTICLB 226,011 THECpNBTITVT^ OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Grievance of the petitiouer ni the present petition is that the petitioner was appoiiited as Assistaiit Teacher 011 a fbced pay scale of Rs. 150 aad affcer completion of probatiou, he was graiited regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitiouer is that he is entitled for regular pay scale witli effect from fhe date of initial appomtment and his case is squm'ely covered with nuaiber of decisions passed by tliis Court aod also fhe jiidgnient rendered by the M.P. State Adnunistrative Tribimal, Jabalpiir m O.A. No. 2745/89 (SSadhukant Ycsdu & 56 dthers ys. Sfate @fJ8€P. <& CWi'feers^ where m it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from tlie date of iheir mitia] appoiBtment. It is not disputed by bofh tlie parties that the inatter was tskeii up by tlie State to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disiiiissed by tlie Apex Court upholdiag the decision of the Tribunal to tlie effect tliat tlie Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entifled for regiilar pay scale froin the date of tlieir initial appouitment. In view of the above siibmission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of iti the same terms i.e. the petitioner is graiited liberty to malce a representatiou, tf so advised, in ^s^ yy^ Itf^ .? /£ 1 '^^'" '%.. '^y'.^ ^^-x.^ '. the light of the aforesaid judgnierLt and fhe circular dated 5,1/2011 (Annexure P/2) aad in. tura, flie conceiiied respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its owu m.erits and ia its perspective. If tlie petitioner staiids on ttie same footiag as per order passed by the State AdniiEiistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aod subsequenUy conftnned by the Suprenie Coiirt in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner may be entitied to same reMcf accordiugly, It is expected from the State aiitliorities to pass suitable order after due scxntioy of the facts, It is niade clear that fliis cozirt has not expressed aay opiniou on tiie m.erits of the case aad the authority conceined woiild be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge