@7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ?§?0}0f 2011 PETITIONER: @111 Das Vaishnaw S/o Sri Ganga Das Vaishnaw, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Sambalpur, Block — Daundi Lohara, Dist— Durg.(C.G.) VERSUS v RESPONDENTS : 141m State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, /' Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhatu‘sgarh, I”, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education omcer, District — Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA “\m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JU$TICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.{S).No. 7807/2011 Shn' S,K.Thomas‘ counsel for the petitioner‘ Shri Chandmsh Shn'vastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Griavance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after completion of probation, he was gmted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date / of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) Where 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 the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment, In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in PETITIONER Arjun Das Vaishnav Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8r. Others @ the light of the afomsajd judgment and the circuhr dated 5. 1.2011 (Armexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its pexspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the $11preme Court in Special Leave etition (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 scmltiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance With law. l Sd/4 ‘9 Pritinker Diwaker r Judge P