8W6LEBEN1 (^V^L— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.tSlNo. ^l^? QF 2010. PETITIONER Daya Ram Thakur, aged about 59 years, Son of Shri L. R. Thakur, Circle Organizer, Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS A^'^--- ^.'^•y ^' A-^&y <.^^'>'"' ^y ^^' ^v cc^ ^Y ~~y^. ^^. ^' <^'' , :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, ,<^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C. G.) 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account & Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^ WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner begs to submit as under:- XI-HC-22 3:n^i'^T f<Tii<=h STT^T 9h^i<=h ^if^a -^ET ^|i<L||^|<L|, ^Tl1<H^I(o. [®l<rtl^^< 317^91 'q^ra? _......^.E.to.)....?s^7^ctl *<{W<1T ^*-ira) •f^sy' 317^T ^n^R: •^T[ SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB PRtTINKBR DIWAKBR 08.12.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel Smt. SmitaGhai, P.L. forthe Grievance of the petitioner in year 1975, the petitioner was appoin scale of Rs. 100 for a period of probation, he was granted regular p^ 1 for the petitioner. $tate, |bhe present petition is that in the i|ted as Dy. Teacher on a fix.ed pay ofie year and after completion of lyscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel entitled for regular pay scale witl appointment and his case is sq^ decisions passed by this Court and M.P. State Administrative Tribunalj (Madhukant Yadu & S6 Othere Vs.| it has been held that similarly placep pay scale from the date of their initrc It is not disputed by both the| up by the State to the Apex Court lj by the Apex Court upholding the de|: that the Teachers/Assistant Teac4< scale from the date of their initial a^pointment repres€|ntation In view of the above submisl partieSy the petition is disposed of ir\ is granted liberty to'make a of the aforesaid judgment and (Annexure P/6) and in turn^ the co|r consider their case on its own metfits CM^t<rt4ltl iTP^ff ^ fec^ <p3l^l< ^'sri^RS^T |or the petitioner is that he is effect from the date of iniitial larely covered with number of 4-lso thejudgment rendered by the Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2743/89 1 State of M.Po fis Others) wherein teachers are entitled for regular appointment. parties that the matter was taJken •ut the appeal was also dismissed ;ision of the Tribunat to the effect ers are entitled for regular pay iion ma.de by the counsel for the the same terms i.e. the petitioner L, if so advised^ in the light the circular dated 27.12.2008 iceined respondent is directed to and in its perspective. If the [T?^ SRs?^ XI-HC-22 ^., ^^ ^WM^, ^Til^^ico. f^cni^iy 3TT^T 'q^T^ ..^ff^ls^.-^^ 'W^ 2fc ^^ST' ^W^\[ 5h^icb STT^T^T f<riJ<=b 3^?T 5b^ish ^f^a Jpetitioner stands on the same footing a^ jAdministrate Tribunal in Madhukant ^ ^onfirmed by the Supreme Court in S] J6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1995, th^ jsame relief accordingly. It is expected from the state au1 |after due scrutiny of the facts. !t is made clear that this Court |on merits ofthe case and the authorit^ |to decide the representation strictly in ^TT^T'^TT^R-^TT <^l^?<rt4l<l TTR^if "^ Fs^il <psi^« ^T'STf^FT 3TI^T 5 per order passed by the State adu (supra) and subsequently >eciaJ Leave Petition (Civil) No. petitioner may be entitled to .horities to pass suitable order has not expressed any opinion conceraed would be at iiberty iccordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge -t- [Tft^ y^.