IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(s.) No. éélz /2011 PETITIONER: /’ Moti Lal Sahu S/o Sri Budh Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years, Working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Salkhan, Block Navagarh, Distt Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) VERSUS /1) RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through»: The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa, (C.G.) 3) Block Education Officer, Block Navagarh, District Janjgir—Champa (C. G.) Joint Director Accounts Treasury and‘ Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER ' w.P.gsy.N0. 65 12/201 1 PETITIONER Moti Lal Sahu V€IS11S State of C.G. 81, Others Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.1 1.2011) Gn'evance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977 as Assistant Teacher on a Med pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, in the year 1979, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with en'ect from the date of l appointxnent and his case is squarely covere with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M’P. State Adtrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 8:: 56 OthersvVs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale nom the de of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal w also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/ Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their l appoinnnent. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the s terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so vised, in initia d minis at as initia ame ad the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) and in tuln, the concerned respondent is dimeted to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administiative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently conflrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge