1/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (5) NO. é%% /2011 / PETITIONER : Bhar‘af Lal Kaushik, Aged about 57 years, s/o Shri Chifmm Kaushik, Head Master, Governmenf Middle School Bhaisbod, Block Bilha, _ ’Disfr‘ic'r—Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Lx/ S‘rafe of Chhaffisgar'h Through Secre’rar‘y, School Educo’rion Depar’rmen‘r D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur‘ (6.6.) 2. ' The Direc’ror‘ Public Ins’rruclions Ruipur (6.6.) 3.’/ Districf Educafion Officer, Bilaspur, Disfr‘icf—Bilospur (C.G.) 4./V Block Educafion Officer Bilha, Dlsfricf- Bilaspur (6.6.) 5. Joinf Direcfor, Treasury, Accounf Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 'CONSTITUION OF INDIA A« \ ’ b €6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gs).No. 6870/2011 PETITIONER Bharat Lal Koushik Vel‘SuS RESP<INDENT5 State of Chhattisgarh 8r. OthErs Shn' K.S.Pawar, counsel for the patm'oner. Shri Shashank'l‘hmr, P.L‘ for the Stam. WRIT PETITIOI‘I UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TEE CONSTITEITIC‘N OF INDIA ORDER (21.11.2011) Grievance of th€ petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year and themafter in the year 1976 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of one year. After completion of probation, in the year 1977, he was grantedi regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he iS entitled for regular payscale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of (lecisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.F‘. State Aciministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMZP. 85 Otherslwhere in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that thei Teachers] Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 3 @ In View of the above submission made by ths counsel for’ the pax11'es, the petition is disposed of in the same terms 1'.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 {Annexure P/ 2 ) and in turn, the concerned, respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per onier passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93/by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on themerits of the case and the authority concerned Would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Biwaxar ' E Judge