^y^ ^^ fti.E.ins II^ULI^ ^^l^l^s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No.r7)^S"- /2011 ^ PETITIONER Bhagat Ram Shoki S/o Shri Badri Prasad Shoki aged about 62 Years occupation Retired Head Master Govt. Priraary Schopl Aniokola, Block- Gourela Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ '"..^••^ ^>^€) ^' l^ \^>- lv'y ^.^- RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Comraissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) -^ 3.~~ Assistant Coran'iissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director Treasuiy,accounts, pension, Bilaspui: District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F'J '~"s'-^... .V 7y U' t»« versus Bhagat Raai Shoki State of Chliattisgarh & Othei-s Sbri Ajay Barik, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the Stete. (01.12.20111 Grievance of the petitioner in ttie present petition is fua.t the petitioner was initiatly appointed a.s Assistan.t Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 and after copletion of probation, he was granted regiilar pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the coiinsel for fhe petitioner is fliat he is entifled for regular pay seale with effect froin fhe date of iaitial appointment aad his case is squarely covered with nuiiiOer of decisions passed by tbis Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0~&. Ns. 2745/89 (Ma.ehukan.t Yadu. Ss 56 Qthers Vs. State ofM.P. Ss Others) where iu. it bas been held that similarlv placed teacbers are entitled for reKular oav scale froia the date of their initial appoin.tment. It is not disputed by botli th.e parties that fhe inatter was taken up by the State to fh.e Apex Court but the appeal was also disaiissed by the Apex Court upholduig the decision of the Tribunal to tlie effect fbat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers arc entifled for regular pay scale from. the date of fheu- initial appoiatment. In view of the above submission inade by fhe counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in. ttie saiae tenns i.e. tlie petitioner is graated Kberty to raake a representa.tion, if so advised, in fhe light ofthe aforesaid judginent and fhe circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/ 2) aad in tura. fhe concemed respondent is directed to L..—.. -/' ':' g1-.. ; ^Ssn. \i consid.er his case on its own m.erits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner staads on the same footing as per order passed by tjie State Admirtistrative Tribun.al ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confimied by ttie Supreiae Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by ord.er dated 03.01.95, flie petitioner niay be entifled to same reliefaccordingly. It is expected froin the State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scriitiriy ofthe facts. It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed any opinioxi on fhe iiierits of fhe case aad fhe aufhorit}7 concemed would be at Uberty to decide flie representation stricfly is. apconlaiice wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1