SingteBench C ^ <io<y ^ (p IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ••^ W. P. (Sl No. ^l^ OF 2011. PETITIONER ^^ -ew^ ....'•y' ,y Chandrahas Sahu, S/o. late Shri Bodhan Singh Sahu, aged about 56 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Kamroud, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^.0-'''^A'' ..•• •^•^' y VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ : 1. / 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PmTINKER DIWAKER PBTITIONER RESPONDEKTs W.P4SI.NO. 6963/2011 Ctiaadraha^ Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ot2iers Shri. Somkaot Verma, counsel fbr the petifclon.er, Slui N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION U3SDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIOH OF I39DIA ORDBR 124.11.2011) Grievan.ee of the petitioner m the present petition is tliat the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, he was granted regiilar payscaleofRs. 169-300. Conteution of fhe counsel tbr the petitiouer is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from fhe date ofinitial appoinfaaient aiid his case is squarely covered with nmnber ofdecisions passed by tliis Coiirt ao.d also the judgment rendered by tfae M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpxir in O.A. N<s. 274S/89 ^Setdhukant Ycsdu &S6 C^thers Ps. State @fM.P. & € hers)where m it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entiUed for regulai- pay scale from fhe date offiieir mitial appomtoient. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken iip by tlie State to the Apex Court but tlie appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdmg the decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistant Tcachers are entifled for rcgular pay scate from the date of tlieir mitial appomtment, In view of tlie above submission made by the cotinsel for tl-ie parties, the petition is disposed of m fhe same terms i.e. tlie petitioner is graated liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in n^ \ the light of the aforesaid judgnient aad tlie circular dated 5,1.2011 (AiLuexui'e P/5) axid iii tuni, fhe coucemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own nierits mid iii its perspective. If tlie petitioner staiids on fhe same fboting as per order passed by the State AdmiQ-isti'ative Tribunal io. Madhukaiit Yadu (supra) and subseque^iUy confirmed by fhe Siiprenie Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civ.i3) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entitled to saaie relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable ordcr after due scnitiay ofthe facts, It is niade clear that this court has not expressed aay opiaion on tiie merits of fhe case aad tlie authority concenied would be at libert^7 to decide the representation strictly ia accordaxice wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge