ilMftl F RFM?IM i^^ Lc o' ^L ^'^a IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No...fc..l^.'&........2011 PETITIONER ^ ^^^..- ^•^^^•-\^\\ '.'c^" ..-;'"\ ^0 ""',:-':\^' v^ RESPONDENTS (1) Pitambar Goswami S/o Shri KEimalban Goswarai aged 50 years, Head Mater Government Primary School Patarjhori Saja District Durg ( C.G.) VERSUS < The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Sehool Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) / District Education Officer, Bemetara District Durg ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ^ Writ Petitlon (S) No. S138 of203, PETITIONER Pitambar Goswami VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of cnhattisgarh and Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State. TITUTIGN OF 2N QRDEJt Grievance of the the petitioner was pay of Rs. 4,000 probation period, he petitioner in the present petition is that as Assistant teacher on a fixed after successfully completing the as granted reguiar pay scale. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initjal appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur jn O^. fto. 274S/89 (Msdhukant Yatlu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. Sk Others) whereln it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 3. 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 a!so dismissed by the Apex Court upholctlng the decislon of the Tribunal to the effect that the teachers/Assistant ^!^:-- lt^"~tj V vv€/ "•'«SSS-M^'' (ftt^ •a." Teachers are entitled for regutar pay scaie from the date of their initial appolntment. 4. 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 the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-6) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in it,s perspective. 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 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. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned woutd be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, Sd/- ; i Pritin!(er Diwaker\ ' -.Judge