^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No......3..'2:^.'i7.....2011 PETITIONER ^p.^F^/-;"^ ^^....-<^ ^' ...•-'••"^' ..•-•' RESPONDENTS Chedi Lal Netam S/o Shri Lallu Singh Netam Aged 56 Years, Head master Middle School Phulkaripara Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) (2) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTLCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRTT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. & ^? fl PETITIOMER versus ^hedi Lal Netaza State of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Soinkant Vei-taa, counsel tbr the petitioner. Shri Yashwai-it Singh Thalcur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT P3ETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIQN 107.12.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner ia the present petition is that the petitioner was appoiated as Assistaiit Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fh.e petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froin the date of initial appoiaTinent aiid his case is squarely covered wifh nuinber of decisions passed by fh.is Coiirt aud also fhe judgiaent rendered by'the M.P. State Admtuistrati.ve Tribunal, Jabalpiu- ia 0^&. No. 274S/89 (SSfs&hukant Yadu & S6 Others Vs. State ofJtt.P. 8s Gtfaers^ where ia it has been held that simflariy placed teachers are entitted for regiilar pay scale froin the date offb.eir mitial appoin.tment. It is not disputed by bofji ftie parties that the matter was takea up by the Stbte to the Apex Court but the appeal was also disiaissed by fhe Apex Coiirt upholding the decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin fhe date oftheir iaitial appointment. In view of the above subinission inade bv the counsel for fhe parQes, fhe petition is disposed of iu fhe same tenas i.e. the petitioner is graated Ubeity to inake a representation, if so advised, ia .^SE"^- ¥ ii' 'vy^ s">.!:, <£•••"•"' the Ught of the aforesaid judgiuent aad fhe circuJar dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/5) and in tum, £he conceraed respondent is directed to consider fheir case on its own inerits aad in its perspective. If ttie petitioner staiids on tbe sarae footing as per order- passed by the State Adiniuistrative Tribiuial ia Madhukant Yadu (supra.) and subsequeu.Uy coBfirmed by the Supresie Court iu Special Leave Petition (Civii) N0. 6892/93 by orier dated 03.01.95, the petitioner raav be entiUed to sarne i-elief accordinglv. It is expected fioia tlie State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy oftbe facts. It is inade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed any opiaion on the inerits of the case aa.d the aufhority concemed would be at Vberty to decide tts.e representation strictty ia accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge