c (c -i^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^T^ OF 2011. PETITIONER fi\\ ....^••, ,^.3^>' ^s^^ ...;^:^""r VERSUS Jal Singh Kanwar, S/o. late Shri Bodhi Ram Kanwar, aged about 59 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Paraswani, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^•>>A" ...-• <^- RESPONDENTS ^:1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) i.^..^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ./"ys&^ '•&' HIGH COURT OP CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER PETITIONER RBSPONDENTs W.P.I8LNO. 6962^2011 .Jal Sio.gh Kauwar versus State of Chhattisgarh 8& Otliers Shri Sonikaiit Verma, counse! for tlie petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for tlie State. WmTPETrriONVNDBRARTlCLm226QFTH&CGilBl!TVltGiS OF INDIA ORDER f24.11.20111 Grievaiice of the petitioner ia fhe present petition is tliat tlie petitioner was appoiiited as Deputy Teacher on a llxed pay scale of Rs. 100 and alter completion of probation, he was graiited regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel ft>r the petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale witii effect from fhe dste of iaitiaE appoiotment and his case is squarely covered with nuniber of decisions passed by this Court aad aJso the jiidgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. N0. 2745/89 (Madhukant Vadu Ss S6 C hers Vs. Steste ®fM.P.& Ofrhers^where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their iiutial appoio.toaient. It is not disputed by botli the parties that the niatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by tlie Apex Coiirt upholdmg the decision of the Tribunal to tiie etYect fhat the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitied for regular pay scale fi'om. fhe date of their initial appouitnient. In view of fhe above subniission raade bv the coiinsel for the parties; tlie petition is disposed of in the saoie tei-ms i,e. the petitioner is gra^ted Mberty to inake a representation, if so advised, ia the light of the aforesaid judgment aad the circular dated 5,1,2011 (Annexure P/5) and in tum, fhe concenied x'espondent is directed to consider therr case on its own iiierits anid in. its perspective. If the petitioner stands on ftie saiae footiag as per order passed by fhe State Adininistrative Tribunal in Madhukan.t Yadu (supra) and subsequently confiroied by the Supreiae Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner xaay be entitied to same reMef accordiagly. It is expected froni fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiay offhe facts. It is nxade clear that fhis court has not expressed aiiy opniion on fhe Bierits of tlie case aud the authority conceraed would be at liberty to decide the representation stdctly ia accordaace witii law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge