smGLE aENcm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. S No. 20 1 1 SwARAM CHANDRAKAR S/o LATE CHOKHARAM CHANDRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RESIDENCE BLOCK COLONY, TAKHATPUR, Pos'r TAKHATPUR, Dls'rmc'r 31LASPUR (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDgNT: 1K STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH). 2. DIsTSRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) 3. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK PATHARIYA, DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) if \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HWEH ($wHRT OF t3Ht§ATT£$C§£XRH m7 WLA$PMR {Ham Mr. Jumme P‘ritmker Diwakar) W.Pl($) N0. 6M$ 0f 2M1 Pemmnar Siyaram Chandrakar VERSUS Rammndent $tate 0f Chhattisgarh and camera Wmam: 8hr; Anumeh Shrivasiava, caunael for ihe pammner. Shri N. Naha Rey, PL for the $taie. w R: m La“ R (mmwm; With the cansam 0f the pames) the matter i3 heard ttnaHy. 2. Grievance 0f the? petitioner in the pre3ent petitmn §s mat thaa {mmmner wam appointed as As$§$tant Tvaachar on fixed pay scaie of Rs.300/‘ for a perimd of two years; and after mmpieiian oi probation, he wag grantad regular pay acaie.’ n Cunteniion of iearned aoungei irir the petitioner i$ that he is eniiiied for reguiar pay male with effect from the date of initial appointment and hie caee ie equarely covered with number or decieione paeeed by thie Court and aleo the judgment rendered by the MP. $taie Adi'ninistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in (in. No, Write/89 titledhrrkant Yartu and r56 otrrere Vs‘ $tate of MW. end otherel, wherein it wee heio that the eimllerly eirueted teachers are entitled for regular pay eoele with eiteot from the date ot initial appointment. 4. lt is not dieputed by hoth the partiee that the matter wee taken up by the $tete to the Apex Court but the appeal wee also diemieeed by the Apex Court uphoiding the deoieion of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teeohere/Aeeistant Teachers are entitied tor regular pay ecele from the date of their inrttai appointment. ,1 - 5. m viaw 0f the above submiawsion mada by kaamed caunae! for the partiea the petitian i$ di$po$ed of in the same harm's Le. the petiimner i3 granted libmy t0 make a representation, if $0 adviwd, in the Fight of the aforesaid judgment and tho oirowar dared 13.02.2008 (Annexure P~7) and in turn, the concerned reopondent i$ directed to consider their case on ite own merits and in its perspective. kt the petitioner etands on the eame footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yade (supra) and eubsequentiy confirmed by the Supreme Court in Specie! Leave Petition (Cit/it) No.6892/93 by order dated 0301.95, the petitioner may be entitied to eame relief aooordingiy. 6. it is expected from the $tete authorities to pass etiitabie order after due scrutiny of the facts. Priya ‘f it ie made oiear that this Court nae not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned wouid be at iiberty to decide the representation striotiy in accordance ‘ with iaw. r- s sw- Pritinker Diwaker Judge