t^ Sirsgte B^ndh INTSIE HON^LE HIGH COURT OF_CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7^7^. PETITIONER: ^ \f^.^ J<^/</ .^<xl ^y 1^y ^ Respondents ,\ Gupteshwar Singh Paikra, son ofShiv Charan Singh, aged about 54 years, working Head Master, Govt.Middle School, Jhargava, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. *-^" 3. Assistant Coinmissioner, Tribal Welfare Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ^ 4. Block Education Officer, Batouli, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t—- ^J HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr«Justice Pritinker Diwalcer) Writ: Petition fS) No. 4144 Of 2011 PETITIONER Gupteshwar Singh Palkra VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhatttsgarh and others Shri Harish Khuntiya/ counsel for the petitloner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L forthe State. wRrr pEriTiON UNDERAIITICLE 226 OFTME ORDER (01.08.2011) Grievance of the petitioner tn the present petltion Is thN: the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacber on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after successfully completlng the probation perlod, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitloner is that he is entitted for regular pay scate wtth effect from th®date of initial appointment and his case i§ squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and ais© the judgment rendered by the M,P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0-A. No- 2745/89 (Madhukanf Ysilu & 56 Othevs Vs» State of M-P« & Otfcers) wheretn it he®been held that similarly placed teachers are entitted for regular pay scale from the date of their initjal appotntment. 3. It is not disputed by both the parttes ttiat the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the app^l was atso dismtssed by the Apex Court upholding the decislon of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assfetant ...\ ^•it / ^^ ..^' -z- Teachers are entjtled for regutar pay seaie from the date of their jnjtlal appointment, 4. In view of the above submissioii made by the coynsel for the parttes, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i,e. the petittoner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the Kght of the afbresaid judgnriQnt anct the circufar dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) anet in turn, the concerned respondent (s directed to constder hjs case on its own merits and in its perspectjve. If tl^ petitionerstands<?n the same footlng as per order passed by tt^ State Admlnistrative Tribunal In Madhukant Yadu (sypra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Speclal Leave Petitlon (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated ©3.01.95, the petitloner may be entltled to same retief accopdlngly, 5. It is expected from the State authorlt(es to pass suiteble order after due scrutlny of the facts. 6. It (s made clear that thls court has not expr&ssed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority c©ncerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge