A-. SN7:y^@ 3QTt{ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.&.) W.P. (S) N0. ?3o7 /2011 PETITIONER / ^ ^.^ <%^ ^y^ ^•y....--^' "^y ^' RESPONDENTS /; ^' -' l< 1: 2. K^" ^ Narendra Kumar Gupta, aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Mukharchand Gupta, Head Master, 6overnment Primary School Kalmitar, Block Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education bepartment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) 3f District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) 4. Block Education Officer ^" Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITCON UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUION OF INDIA ^ ,\ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC®PRITINKER DIWAKER W_.P.ii|,NO._^30'7l2011 PBTITIONER RJESPQKDBNTs versus Narendra KTixnar Gupta State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (05.12.2011) Grievaiice of the petitioner ia the present petition is tliat ftie petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100-150 aad after conxpletion of probation, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for tlie petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale with effect from tihe date of initial appointm.ent aad his case is squarely covered wifh niimber of decisions passed by tiiis Court aad also the judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Admmisti'ative Tribunal, Jabalpiir in. O.A. NQ. 2745/89 (BSeulhukant Yadu & S6 Ofhers Vs. State ofM.P. & Otfeers/where ifi it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitied for regular pay scale froni fhe date of fheir niitial appoiatment. It is not disputed by bofh tlie parties that ihe matter was tsken up by fhe State to th.e Apex Court but flie appeal was also disxnissed by fhe Apex Court upholdio.g the decision oftlie Tribunal to tlie efiect that tlie Tea.chers/Assistant Teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froni the date of tlieir initial appoiiitment. In view of fhe above siibnussion made by the counsel for tiie parties, the petition is disposed of in tlie same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to make a representation, tf so advised, m fhe Ught ofthe aforesaid judgment aiid fhe circiilar dated 5,1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aad in. tara, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider tlieir case ou its own raerits aad m. its perspective. If fhe petitioner stands on fhe same footmg as per order passed by fhe State Admmistrative Tribimal m Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly confimied by the Suprexae Conrt in Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner Biay be entifled to same reUef accordiagly. It is expected frora the State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiuy offhe facts, It is niade clear fh.at this court has not expressed aay opiiiion on fhe merits of fhe case aiid the authority concemed would be at ttbex^ to decide tlie representation strictly in. accordaace witli law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge