'singie IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No.^^0f2011 ^"lof@^4o/f// • Gaukaran Lal Sonboir S/o Shri PETITIONER: ^^- r.1...-:-^^-;.,..!-^ ^^y^^ ^<< o t9-- <Jl^ RESPONDENTS /s^\ Shanti Ram Sonboir, aged about 55 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Pasaud, Block Gunderdehi, Dist- Durg.(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. Ttee State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, .Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTIGLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i'5'?»T.KR "aff^? -?i?S£jTl?^'S'* ©^??^¥k?%?'S^SS'£PkS^?t%f&^1?.'?! tSf S5.S^» tJU©A£i^&y^JiS.S.SSi^S-EsS^ a^S.'V^^Sh.S^.SSs'S? PBTITIONBR versus Gaukaran Lal Sonbou' State of Chliattisgarh Others Shri Rakesh Antbony, counsel for tbe petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Sia.gh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PBTITmN UNDER AS.TICLE 235 G? THE CONSTITUTI03 GrievaD.ee of the petitioner m. fhe present petition is that the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher (Traiaee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 aiid after coinplefion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the couiisel for the petitioner is fhat he is entitled for reglllar pay scale with effect froia the date /•bfiaitial appointiuent aad his case is squarely covered witll nuiaber of decisions passed by this Court and also tlie judgm.ent rendered by tlie M.P. State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274S/89 pttesd.httkaiif YeuS.il &, SS Others Vs. State ofSS.P. & Othersiwhere in it has been held tliat simUarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scsie froia fb.e date of fh.eu- itutial appointiaent. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parti.es that the niatter was taken up by the State to tlie Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upho'idilig the decision of the Tribunal to tlie effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froia the date of fheir initial atipoiiitment. In view of the above subniission inade bv thc counsel for tbe parties, fhe petition is disposed of m the sasie tenns i.e. tbe petitioner is eraated liberty to luake a representation, if so advised, in ""*'*5>,. .-A~~%. ^-^fr—^: ^~~-^sf"^-''' "••;' .y /. i fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgnient an.d tlie circillar dated 5.1.2011 (Anaexure P/) aiid ia turu, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own xaerits aad ia its perspective. If tbe petitioner stands on tlie saiiie footing as per order passed by &e State AdmiDistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supral aad subsequentty confirmed by fhe Supreme Court iu Special Leave Petition (Ciwl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tbe petitioner mav be entitled to sam.e relief accordinglv. It is expected froia fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutinv offb.e facts. It is m.ade clear fhat fhis court has not expressed anv opinion on fbe nierits of tiie case aad the autlioritff concemed would be at. liberty to decide the representation strictly iu accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker - .Judge