"6 c^ ^ IN THB HIGH COURtOFCHHATTISCSARHATBILASPUR W.P. (SIN6. m OF2010. PETITIONERS .••' /-// ^C^y ^" A^yy ...<• A" <y (^ :1 ^2, ^3. ^. Chandrika Prasad Dansena, S^o. Shri Pui-ushottam Lal Dansena, aged about 52 years, Head Master, Govt.Middle Sehool School, Patrapali,Block - Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G^ :,',^^ •.,•;.^^^^ Deen Bandhu Sidar, S/o. Shri Budgu Ram Sidar, aged about 53 years, Head Master, Goyt. Middle Schbot School Bamhanpali, Block — Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) :.,.,: Ram Charan Patel, S/o. Shri Dilchan.d Patel, aged about 54 years, Head MasteT, Gbvt, Mid41e School School, ' KukrichDli, Block - Kharsiya,} DistrictRaigarh i • .:(c-°•)• . ::; :.,'.. .•..':,'^::^ Tulsi Ram Rathore, i ©76-s^lrl LQbhiBam Rathore^ aged abput 53 years, Head i Master, Gbvt. Middle Sehool | School Botalda, Block - i Kharsiya, Districf Raigarh ; :tC.'G.}^:.'.:,';..;<, •,.<',/^ H'! ^SSK VBRSUS RBSPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departlnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. O.) ^2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District gaigarh (C. G.) -3. BloGkEducationOfficer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ^i'. TreasuryOfficer, Treasury Account and Pension, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C, G.) tBIII s WRITPETmONUNDESRARTlCLE2260FiTHE CONS'TItU'H^N Of INDIA g^sS^ •^^ ''"Ik, ."•-^^. yvt u/"i /'i ;;"tS<&s. ^I-HC-22 erSS^l W .^/ T»?"i||<)lcl'il, »Til+rle. fawKiy sii^r irsra? lJ-^I&lJ\^3°5^ ,-HC-22 's'eg -<<l<<lc<'ll, »n1'M*l®.["iCTi'My 311^?T XR^? .....L^..fc..1^..l...^-<7B3-iJto ''BT. 200 fwn *qra> ft^T' sn^r'^iT W\<t si^w st>+lich '¥fft?T si^r^Riiw^ito crid^^t 'Rrq'^Jf ^ 1^3t '<pt|<^K ^TSiPtnan^r il' SB : HON'BLEMR. JOSTICE PRITINttBR DIWAKER 03.12.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the (>r the petitioners. Btate. Grievance of the petitioners in petitioners were appointed as Assistaijit of Rs. 100 for a period of one year an|d they were granted reguiar pay scale of the present petition is that the Teachers on a fixed pay scale after completion of probation, Rs. 169-300. Contention of tbe counsel for entitled for regular pay scale •wlth appointment and their case is squ|arely decisions passed by this Court and al< M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, (Madhukaat Yadu (fc 56 Othen Vs. it has been held that aimilarly placed) pay scale from the date of their initial| [the petitioners is that they are [effect from the date of initial covered with number of !0 thejudgment rendered by the |Jabalpur in O.A. M'o. 2745/89 ttate of M.P. & Othen) wherein Iteachere are entitled for regular appointment. It is not disputed by both the up by the State to the Apex Court bu|1 by the Apex Court upholding the deciji that the Teachers/Assistant Teache^- scale from the date of their initial app( In view of the above submissit parties, the petition is disposed c|( petitloners are granted Hberty to mal^e pjarties that the matter was taken the appeal was also dismissed sion of the Tribunal to the effect s are entitled for regular pay antment. in made by the counsel for the in the saine terms i.e. the a representation, if so advised, in the Kght of the aforesaid jud^ment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 and in tum, the conc4"ned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own ineri^s and in its perspective. If the i-^^RcT-, I-HC-22 '%.. ^f '<ii>te.^^ "aste 'Svi -^WM^, yfliu'is. r'Kii'wy 31T^?T •q=ra? ..y'£3fei..fv>'-ia5?? lfe "WI. 200 / 'fN^T' *ii<Twr aiflrai 311^1 ^T f^ii^sni?! Sfllil) ^ltttl sn^i waiw ^ifCT petitioners stand on the same footin; Administrate Tribunal in Madhukan confirmed by the Supreme Court in 6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1995, £ same relief accordingly. It is expected from the state after due scrutiny of the facts. |as per order passed by the St&te Yadu (supra) and subsequently Ppecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. jie petitioners may be entitled to luthorities to pass suitable order Couift It is made clear that this on inerits of the. case and the authorfty to decide the representation strictiy il thl^llfl4t1 •tlt*^T'^ fs^l <f<l<^K ^TSlPOT 311^1 has not expresaed any opinion concemed would be at Uberty k accordance with law. Sd/- Pritmker Diwakar Judge i-^ •sfhri