PETITIONER Sursari devi Wd/o Late Sammelal khunte, aged about 46 years, R/ o Village Tahsil —— Pamgarh, District —- Janjgir — Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS / r1. —Pamgarh, State of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhavvan, Janjgir, District — Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Education Officer, Pamgarh, District —— Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Treasurar, Accountants and Pension, Janjgir, District — Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) /4. wThe Block IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT w. P. (S) wit“)? OF 2010 BILAsPUR (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, WRIK C9 T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E WW Wmmm ~ mm wm? WW ésmm S.B.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PRITINKER DIWAKER 094232010: Shri Dharmcsh Shrivast’ava, COLVnsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, GA‘ for the Stats, Grievance of the petitioner in tha present petition is that in the year 1976, her husband late Sammelat Khunte was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale: of Rsi 100 for a period of one year and after completion of probatioh, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with affect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squ ely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and a1 o the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, abalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. e of M.P. & Others) wherein it has been held that similarly placed eachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial ppointment. It is not disputed by both the p rties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court bu the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the deoi ion of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teaohe s are entitled for regular pay. scale from the date of their initial app intmenti In View of the aboveas'ubmissi n made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a represen ation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and tie circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/2) and ii turn, the con emed respondent is directed to t e Wm m . ......w 90>) .............................................. mg .........Wag /<,o WW&WW amwmm :rits and in its perspective. If the ig as per order passed by the State nt Yadu (supra) and subsequently n Special Leave Petition (Civill No. , the petitioner may be entitled to consider their case on its own m‘ petitioner stands on the Same focti! Administrate Tribuna1 in Madhuke confirmed by the Supreme Court i 6892/93 by order dated 3,1.1995 same relief accordingly. It is expected from the state after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this on merits'of the case and the aut to decide the representation strictl : authorities to pass suitable order rt has not expressed any opinion ority concerned would he at liberty in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ma Freq C u