IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnS6ARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) w.p.rs^No. ^73^ /2011 PETmONER ^^/ 'cy^- ^/"v RESPONbENTS : 1. Shobha Ram Manhar, Aged about 64 years, S/o Late Shn Mangluram Manhar, Retired Head Master, 6overnment Girls Higher Secondary School, Bilha, Block Bilha, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education bepartment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2<f The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) 3.< District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 4f Block Education Officer Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) 5; Joint birector, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUION OF INblA •^\T<^— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKER W.P.ISl.NO. 7306/2011 PBTITIONER RESPONDENTs versus Sbobha Ram Maiihar State of Chhattisgarh & Otliers Shri K,S.Pawai'5 counsel for the petitioner. ShriYashwant SmghThakur, Dy. A.G. forthe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB COHSTITUTION OF1NDIA ORDER (OS. 12.2011) Grievaace of the petitiouer ia fhe present petition is tliat the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aiid after completion of probaUon, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Conteution offhe coiinsel for the petitioner is that he is entified for regular pay scale witli effect froni fhe date of iiiitial appoiiitmient and his case is squarely covered wifh nuniber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also th.e judgiuent rendered by the M.P, State Admmistrative Tribursal, Jabalpur m O.A. Na. 274S/89 (Madhukant Ycwlu SsSS Others Vs. State ofM.P. So Others^where ia it has been held fhat simUarly placed teachers are eutitled for regular pay scale from. the date of tih-eir uiitial appointment. It is not disputed by both fhe parties that the m.atter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disixiissed by the Apex Court upholding tlie decision of tlie Tribiuial to the efFect that tlie Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froni tlie date of their iaitial appoiiitinent, In view of tiie above subiaission niade by the counsel for the parties, ttie petition is disposed of ia the same terms i.e. tlie petitioner is granted Uberty to niake a representatiou, if so advised, ia fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgment aiid the circular dated 5,1.2011 (Annexiire P/ 2) and in tura, the concenied respondent is directed to cousider their case on its own raerits aiid io. its perspective. If the petitioner staB.ds on tiie same footing as per order passed by the State Adniiaista'ative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subseqiiently confiiTned by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CivU)NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitted to same reUef accorduigly. It is expected from fhie State aufhorities to pass sziitable order after diie scrutiny ofthe facts, It is niade clear fhat fhis coiirt has iiot expressed any opinion on fhe raerits of fh.e case aad fhe aufhionty concemed woiild be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictiy in. accordaace with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge