-1- ^ SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. PETITIONER r.ft-' p.,ftsentw :^ \ ^15...^<- 'lSSs'-^ ....—"••* P:;?seRt°' "' "...».——•\""^" ^...-•---^\\\ RESPONDENTS W.P. (S) No. '5-;K>'5~ 2011 / Pancham Lal Markande, aged 62 Years, S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Markande, Retired Pradhan Pafhak, Govt. Primaiy School, Othargahan, BlockfiE Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg VBRSUS ^ 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.Q.) 2. District Education Officer, Distt. Durg C.G. 3. BIock Education officer Patan, Distt. Durg itJi'lt-t-':"—-•••••—•- WRIT PETLTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIOH C»URTOP CHHAmEKiARH AT BVLASPVSt SB : HON'BLB MR. .TOSTICB PMTnil@iR DIWAKBR PBTinOIIER W.P.(SI.IIO.ST08/a011 Pancham tal Mmliande versus KE»POMDBnTS State of C.G.& Ofhcrs F SIui Somlmat Verma, cozinsel fbr fhe petitioner. ShriA.V.SIutidhar, P.L. fortfac State. WRiTpBTnion imDBR ARTIOUB aae OF TMB coitsnTOTioii OFIITOIA ORDBR (26.09.2011) Grievaaee of the petitioner ia fhe iwescat petitioa is fhat tte petittoner was appointed as Dy. Teacher on a fixed pay acate of Rs. 100 for a period oftwo years aad after coiaptetioa of protoatioa, he was graatcd regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe coiuisel for fhe petltioner is tfaat he is entifled for regular psy scale with cflFect fix»in fhe datc of initial appoiatmeat aad his case is squarely covered with nuiaber ofdecisiorts passed by fhis Court and also the judgment rendered ty fhe M.P. State Adintoistrativc Tnbunal, Jabalpur in 0^1. JW». 274S/S®(9SaShidc»nt 7adu & S6 OthersVs. State oflS.P. d»Otfters/'where in it has been held that simjlarly placed teachers are entitled for regalar pay scate fl?om the date oftheir initial appoiatment. It is not disputed by both fhe parties that thc matter was taken up by the State to thc Apex Court but fhe appcal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdit^ thc decision offhe Tribuaal to the cffect that fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entiUed for regular peiy scalc finui fhe date oftheir JTiitial appoiataicnt. In view of fhe above submlssion made by thc couasel for &e parties, the petition is disposed of ia the saine terms i.e. fhe petitioner is p-anted liberty to make a represeatation, if so advised, in j s., 'fe80 '•^^•l.T?;^ ^ thc l^ht of the aforesaid judgment and fte ciicular dated 5.1^011 (Aimcxure P/4) aad ia tum, fhc concemed lespondent is directed te consider their case on its own inerits aad ia its perspcctivc. If tfae petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by tfae State Adiiunistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequeafly confiraied by ftie Supreme Coiirt in 8pecial Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tfae pctitioner niay be entitled to same rellrfaccoidiagly. It is expected fiTOxn fhe State auttionties to pass suitable order after due sc3-uttoy offhe facts. It is niade ctear fhat this court has not e3q>ressed aay opiniaa on the inerits of fhc case and fhe authority concemed would be at liberty to dccide the representation strictly iu accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge