% \ / /\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(s.) No. $6657 /2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE QONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF‘ WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ‘ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. §mw PETITIONER: /, Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kanchhawar Shanna, Aged about 58 years, Retired as Head Master At Government Prima1y School Kathani, Post Office Kondapali, Via Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /"1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School N Education Department, D.K.S. W“ Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) \w 7/“ 2. // I District Education Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) \V a ”/3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts Q.r. q‘c’a cé" $3.“...r...” Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) $0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M SB z HON’BLE MR. JUSTXCE PRITIWKER DIWAKER ix» Shri KP‘Sahu, couxmel for the patitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G. A. for th€ Statc. WRITM PETKTION UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (02.09.2011) Grievazxce of the petitioner in {he present patition is that the perjh'oner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixer} pay scak: 0f Rs. 100 for a pem'od of twa wars and aftsr complction 0f pmbatiom ‘ ha was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-30G. Confontion of the counsal for the patitioner is that ht: is; entmed for mguhr pay sceJe with effecf from rho date of initia} appointmmn and his case is squamly (:ovared with number of ciecisions passiad by this. Court and also the judgment mndemd by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. Na. 2745/89 (Madhakant Yaéu & 56 Others Vs. State afMP. 8:. Others) Wham in it has baen held. that similarly placsd teachers an: entitlad for regular pay scale from the date of their imitial appointment. i It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was {akcn up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tn’bunal to the cifect that. the Teachers] Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 1n View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms ie. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a. representation, if so advised, in I EQELSLNO. 5097/201 1 PETITIONER Dilip Kumar Sharma versus RESPGNDENTS Stats of C.G. 6:. Others the light of the afomsajd judgment, and the circuiar dated 5. 12011 (Annexure P/ 2) and in turn, the concermad raSpondent is directed to consider his casE on ifs own merits Emd in its perspech’vg. if the pstitioncr stands on the sama footing a$ per otdm‘ paS$6d by the State Adminisrmicive Tribunal in Madhukam Yadu (supra) and su‘bsequamly confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitied to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authoxities to pass suitable oxrler after due scrutiny of the facts. it is made clear that this court has cot expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide fhe representation strictly in accordance withwlax’rv; M Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge