J PETITIONER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. ^T- 49 / 2011 Sewak Ram Sidar S/o Late Shri Bhagat Ram Sidar, aged about 56 years, Occupation Service, Headmaster Posted at Government Primary School, Kudarbahara, Block Basna, J-^; ^i^- ^^.y .,,.0»'' ...•-"- \^ <'c^.-'"" ^^ RESPONDENTS District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2) The District Education Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : fc ^^ '^,. ^•o- COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BSLASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JU8TICE PRIT2NKER P'BTITION'ER W.P.ISI.NO. 7749/2011 Sewak Ram Sidar versus State of ChJiaxtlsgarh & Ofiiers Shri Sonikant Verma, coiiB.sel Ibr the petiuoner. Shri Praveeu Das, Dy. G.A. for tlie S'tate. WmT,PETITIOI,UIDSRARTICL^_226_OF oFiamA ORDER (16.12.2011) Grievaiice of tlie petitioner in tlie preseiit petition is that tlie petitioner was appouited as Assistaut Teacher 011 a tlxed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after conipletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for fhe petitioner is tliat she is entitted for regular pay scale witii effect froiii the date of mitial appoiatiiient and his case is squarely covered witli number of decisions passed by this Court aad also the judgment rendered by tlie M.P. State Admiiiistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur iiii O.A^ N^. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadts. & 56 € hers Vs. Statc ©fM.P. «fe Qthers) where in it has been held th.at sim.ilarly placed tea.chers ai'e eutitled for x'egular pay scale from. tlie date of tlieii' mitial appomtmeiit. It is iiot disputed by both the parties that fhe niatter was taken np by the State to the Apex Court but tlie appeal was also dismlssed by the Apex Coiirt upholdixig the decision of the Tril^unal to the effect that the Tea.chers/Assistaiit Teachers ai'e entitled for regular pay scale froni the date oftlierr iiiitial apponitHient. In view of flie above subiuission made by the counsel for the parties, the petitioii is disposed of in the saine terms i.e. tlie ^S^g^-' petitioner is grasited tiberty to make a representation, tfso advised, io tlie light of fhe aforesaid jiidgment ajid the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) aad in. tum^ ttie coiicenied respondent is directed to coiisider fheir ca.se on its own m.erits axid iii its perspective. If the petitioner staiids on tS.ie sam.e footio.g as per order passed by tlie State Admniistrative Tribunal m Madhukan.t Yadii (siipra) aiid subse.quently confirmed by the Suprenie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entitled to saaie reUef accordio.gly. It is expected from the State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiiiy ofthe facts, It is made clear that this court has not expressed aiiy op.m.ion on flie nierits of tlie case aiid the aiithority concemed would be at Ubei^ to decide tlie representation strictly in accordance witli law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge