x ss \ 8snsh IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR IC.G.) W.P. (S) N0. ~\U.b /2011 PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS : ^^^-^. ...•• ^^<^ -! 1.. ...<^ ^ •^^ 2. '^°*' 3. Ramratan Sharma, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sharma, Head Master, Government Boys Primary School Bhatgaon, Block Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.&.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) Btock Education Officer Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA •^ t COURT QF AT BILAS SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICg PKiTINKE-R (St VS, Versus Rainrataii S'bai'ma State of CflJiattisgarh. & Ofhcrs Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petttion.er. Shri N.Natia Roy, P.L. for fhe State. Grievance of fh.e petitioaer in fhe present petition is flia.t tlie petitioner was appoiated as Assistaiit Teacher/Trainee oa a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aad after conipletion of probation, he was grauted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel fer &e petitioiier is that he is entitled for regiilar pay scale with effect froin tliet|ate /ofmitial appouitment and his case is sqiiarely covered witti num.ber of decisions passed by th.is Court and aiso tbe judgiaent rendered by fhe M.P. State Admmistra.tive Tribuiial, Jabalpur ia 0>A. N'o. 27^S/89 (SIessihu.lca.nt Yeisiu & S6 Cftfiers Vs. Stfite ofSS.P.Sa oeftsrs^where in it has been held tbat similarly piaced teacliers sre enntled for regiilar pay scale froni the dafe offiieir iaifisl appoin.tment. It is not disputed by tioth tiie parties fhat the niatter was taken up by tlie State to fh.e Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disiaissed by fh.e Apex Coilrt uplioldiag the decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect fhat fh.e TeacIiers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froia the date of fheir initial appoiatment. In view of the above subm.ission m.ade bv tfae counsel for tb.e pames, fhe petition is disposed of ia. tbe same tenns i.e. t.fie petitioner is gra&ted Uberty to laake s. representation, if so advised, in. "esa "<;£.^;S: •^ ^. : '^^-^'' .^ ftie Ught of the aforesaid judgment and the circular da.t.ed 5.1.2011 (Aruiexure P/2) and in tura, the conceined respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits and iii- its perspective. If the petition.er staiids on fhe same footing as per order passed by the State Adnuiustrative Tribuiial ia MadhuJsant Yadu (supia) and subsequenfly coBfiraied by fhe Supreine Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civili N0. 6892/93 by ord.er dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to sam.e relief accordia.gly. It is expected from. the State aufhorities to pass suitable oirler after due scnitiuy of the facts. It is laade clear that this court has not expressed aay opinion on the inerits of tlie case an.d the autboritv' concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation stricfty in accordance wifi:! law. SiV- Pritinker Dswaker - .Judge k