^ .pt«<rtt ••»5i"la> PETTTEONER ^^.^•rvj^ ^S^!;;^-*"" ^a\.6&-"" S-S97— (t Dharuw, Padmini Netam,^Aged about years. S/o Late Shri Meharsingh Dhruv, Head Master, 6overnment Primary School, Ameri, Block Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur 2. - The 3.--' District Education Officer, Bilaspur, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.6.) £W^^ + -HC—78 7£f•^i^K'i^i, ^T<1y'!<e, f^irey ...w,.£..^j.^.,^i^z^n Sn^ST'q^)' (>iciI^«l.<tT) ?.1^r V! iyw gftsiT^tgnN? 1 .4 renwgfeon^r wrf?rat;T •wraf tf'is'st-(fgn^re '^sSaqsi'^t SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohari Shrivastava, J. 30-09-2011 Shri K. S. Pawar, counsel for Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel advance copy. Heard. Grievance of the petitioner petitioner was appointed as Assist| she was granted regular pay scale o Contention of the counsel forl regular pay scale with effect from I? case is squarely covered with num( and also the judgment rendered by |ie petitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondents on in the present petition is that the >nt Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150/- for a period of two y^ars and after completion of probation, Rs. 169-300/-. the petitioner is that she is entitled for le date of initial appointment and her >er of decisions passed by this Court Ithe M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745/89 (MadhjikantYadu & 56 Others vs. State of M.P. & Others) wherein it has beerj entitled for regular pay scale from th( It is not disputed by both the the State to the Apex Court but the Court upholding the decision of Teachers/Assistant Teachers are date of their initial appointment. held that similarly placed teachers are • date of their initial appointment. barties that the matter was taken up by appeal was also dismissed by the Apex the Tribunal to the effect that the ^ntitled for regular pay scale from the In view of the above submis^on made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the s^me terms i.e. the petitioner is granted XI-HC—78 'S'-Sf '*tS<iW^, •SWWW, ^vttW^ STROT^T^lNT 'iqiSdisrwci^i' Tumane ant^T'q^T ('^"if^si^Et) TOBWHftff siit's -L •*>!<tEd'si1-< 4Wrii'cffe^ ^afRnsfl'^r t^t liberty to make a representation, if ^o advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgmentand the circulardated (^-01-2011 and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider perspective. If the petitioner stan<|ls on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative| and subsequently confirmed by 1jie Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/1993 by ord| be entitled to same relief accordinglj It is expected from the State] due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this C<> the representation strictly in accordti her case on its own merits and in its Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) ;r dated 03-01-1995, the petitioner nnay authorities to pass suitable order, after urt has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authorityjconcerned would be at liberty to decide ncewithlaw. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge