J-. ,SmgleBer'^h c .V 'l's^^ IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURT OF WHAmsGAKH AT BILASPUR (C.&.) /Jeevan Lai Nayak, Aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Tularam Nayak, ,^y ^/^<^ er Secondary Schooi, Baima Bitha, District- -sr A" ..' ^yy '''<>•' ^" D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. District Education Officer, Biiaspur, , District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Director, Treasury, t] M M rfi |m M PO 10^ ^ V ^^ ^'y'^a. "'T%,.' f^J\ !t;^ni;ga>>> B v;»^l1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOM'BLE MR. JU8TICE PRITINKER DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNT8 W,P.<S).MO. 5766/2011 Jeevan Lal Nayak versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri K.S.Pawar, couasel for the petitiDner. Shri Y^hwant Siugh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for fhe State. WRITPETITION UMDERAKTICLB 226 < THB CONSTrTUTION OFINDIA ORDBR (27.09.2011) Gricvauce of fhe petitioner ia the present petitioa is tbat fhe petitioner was appoiated as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for fhe petitioncr is that he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh cffect from fhe date ofinitial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisioas passed by fhis Court and also the Judgment rendered by thc M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur iu 0»d.No. 274S/89 pMiadhafccint Ya/tlu Ss 56 Otfters Vs. SiutB ofX.P. & Otfters/where lii it has bcen held that smularly placed teachers are entitled fcr regular pay scale froiu fhe date oftheir uutiat appouitment. It is npt disputed by both fhe parties that fbe matter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by tfae Apex Court upholding fhe decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe efifect fhat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled ft)r reguter pay scale fix>m fhe date oftheir laitial appoiatment. In view of the above submission made by fhe counsel for the parfies, the petition is disposed of ia fhe same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to inakc a representation, if so advised, ia ^.N fhe I^ht ofthe aforesaid judgment aad thc ciroular dated 5.1.2011 (Artaexure P/2) and in. tum, fhe concemed respondent is ducctEd to consider their casc on ite own xnerits aad in its perspectwe. If llie petitionerstauds on the sanie footing as per order passed by the State Admuustrative Tribiuial in Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly confirmed by fhe Supreme Coiut in Special Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entifled to same relief accordiagly. It is expected fboin fhe State authorities to pass siritable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is made clear that fhis court has not expressed aay opinion on the merits of the case and fhc aufh.ori.ly coacemed would be at liberty to decide tbe representation stdctty m. accordance with law. Sd/- Tritinker DiwaKai