6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. ^l^y OF2010. tNfilS BfiNCH PETITIONERS -.4 :1. Gyan Kumar Soni, / S/p. late Shri M. L.Soni, aged about 52 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Charama, Block- Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) .^" . • • 2. Shiv Prasad Banjare, S/o. Shri Nathalu Ram Banjare, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Khartha (Charama), Block- Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 3. Mohd. IsraqueKhan, S/o. late Shri Latif Bhai, aged about 54 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Bargari Nawapara, Block-Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ..l^^ VERSUS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throygh : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 1 ^ : ' :• . 2. Assistant Conimissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) 3. BIockEducation Officer, Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. Treasuiy Officer, TreasuryAccount and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) WRIT PETrnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 78 'T^cT '^il^l^iq^ ^Tl1<H^<o, ^dl^y —.......^.£.Ls2.....&..l.'l.ll'..0. *11HCTI q,^jq," •"•••"••"••——^^ 200 ^TI^T TPW (^3ST^T) ^1CT ^T'f^fhF ?TO ^n^T'^TO^T <. c-\:... '^TTW^f^T ^TT^T <^i<i(<n<fli ^TO^t ^ fs^l <pii^i< ^3tfiR3T^ SB : HOH'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRtTINKBR DIWAKBR 26.10.2010 'Rf Shri- Sonikant Venna, cour|se.l for tlie petitioners. Shri Suniesh Bajaj, Dy, G^ Grievaiice of fhe petitioneri m. th.e year 1977; they were appo| pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a| coBipletion of probation, they we|"e graxited regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Coutention of the counsel are entitied for regular pay scaJje wifh effect froia the date of initial appoiatment and their <| nuixiber of decisions passed judgnient rendered by fhe M.P. Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 ^ Vs. State of M.P. & Othears) • ^hereia it.has been held that similarly placed teachers are ent|tled for regulz<r pay scale from the date of their iiiitial a.ppoinim.^ilt ^ for fhe State. ie. th.e present petiti.on is that Lnted as Dy. Teacher on a fixed. period of iwo yeax-s and aft.er |for fhe petitioners is tliat tliey [ase is sqiiarely covered wifti ^y this Court and also fhe |State AdiDiio.istTative Tribunal^ Madhxskasit Yadii & 56 Otlaers It is not disputed by both taken up by t'he S-tate -to tlie Ape^ Court but the Qppealwas also dismissed by the Apex Court Tribunal to the effect tliat the Ts| entitJed for regular pay scale appoiatment. :h.e parties that the matter was ipholdiiig the decision of the sachers/Assistaiit Tea.chers are Erom. th.e date of their initial. -3'^y' WHCtT <»»^Scb ^5ET ^|^|^i<1, y7l1-(H<!<o, f®l<ni-M'j,< ^....i»i!^.&iy.!l ............-^200 3^1'q^T (1cl^a<<i^) ^W^l'f^TW ^T3?T^T'§RW 41.- ^wi<tR ^a 31^1 subinlssion In view of fhe above fhe parties, fhe petition is dispos|?d petitioners are granted Uberty tc| advised, m the Ught offhe afbre^d dated 27.12.2008 (Annexiire P/4) respondent is directed to considejr ajid ia its perspective, If the p| footmg as per onler passed by tl| ia Madhukaat Yadii (supra) and Supreine Court in Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995, the petitiojaers relief accordingly. made by fhe counsel for of in tlie sacae terms i.e. the make a representation, if so ju.dgm.ent and the ciK'cular and m tura, fhe concenied tr their case on its own inerits 'titiouers staad on the same le State Adxsiraistrate Tribunal mbsequently confirmed by ffae j3etition (CivU) No. 6892/93 by [aers may be entiUed to same faets It is expected froni tlie sta. order after due scrutiiiy of fhe It is inade clear that this opiDion on nierits of the case would be at Mberty to decide accordaace witJi law. <^l^i<rl41^ ^ITO^ "^ 'feT^t <F;n^i< ^^tfTOsn^T :e' authorities to pass suitable pourt has not expressed aiiy ^rid the aiitliority coucemed (he representation stdcfly in Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge