^. c: -+ <r> K ^ "^^ 9^ -^.:-. -^^ ^Vt !%» ^ -* . A fl ^^ ^' -.'''"/ ->• ^' -? ^ .(r> \ \ . 3. 2. E n' "^ 1 £gI 1 CS ^° SuBt^ Ei " - k ~s -5 -4< -+> n p |«A ^- 6 s ^- (ft o <tt o u» -+ -1 n-(• ! (0 y^n3- o \ 6i D (A y ^- ~s •s 7? -! y ' i .>• U3 O 3 a. ^- £, —(" ^ bQ M v^ n ^-1 o G " ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSTICB PRITIMKBR DIWAKER PSTITIONER W.P.tSI.NO. 6188./2011 Smt. Oinkau. Taini-akar versus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the State. WMT PBTiTIOB UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THB CONSTITUTION (17.10.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner iu fhe present petition is fhat fhe petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, she was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for tiie petitioner is that she is entifled for regular pay scale with effect &OICL the date of initial appoiatment and ber case is squarely covered wifh number of decisions passed by fhis Court aud also the judgnient rendered by the M.P. State Adiairustrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O^A. No. 274S/89 (aSaAhukant Yadu Ss 56 Others Vs. Steete of JS.P. Ss Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitted for regular pay scale fom. fhe date of fheir initial appointnient. It is not disputed by both fhe parties that fhe matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court upholding the decisiou of the Tribunal to the efFect that the TeacIiers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fix>iu tlie date oftheir initial appointuient. la view of the above subinission niade by the counsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia the same terais i.e. the w petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, ia fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgment aad ffae circiilar dated 5.1,2011 (AnnexuTe P/2 ) aad in tura, fhe concenied respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footmg as per order passed by the State Adinmistrative Tribunal ia Madhukaat Yadu (supra) and subsequeatly confinned by fhe Supreine Court ia Special Leave Petitioa (CiviQ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entitled to sanie reUefaccordiagIy. It is expected from fhe State authorities to pass siiitable order after due scrutmy oftiie facts. It is inade clear fhat this coiirt bas not expressed any opioion on the inerits of the case and fhe authority conceraed would be at liberty to decide the representatioa strictly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwake. Judge