IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION‘(S) No.:}’3070f 2011 PETITION ER: Ugay Ram Thakur S/ o Shri PaharuRam Thakur, aged about 55 years, U.D.T., Govt. Middle School Sonaidongri, Block Gurur, Dist-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS : 1. The 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 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CiiHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR M SB : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.]S).NO. 7804! 2011 Shn' S.K.’I‘homas, counsel for the petitioncr. Shri Chandwsh Shn’vastava, PL. for th6 Siam. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Gn‘evanca of the petitioner in thc p1tsent petition is that the pafitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after Completion of probation, 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 effect from the date / of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teacheis are entitled for regular pay scale £rom the date 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 was 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 initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised; in PETITIONER Uday Ram Thakur Versus RESPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh the light of the aforesaid judgment and the cimular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed 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 dom 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 authoritv concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. ‘ Sd/— i i Pritinker Diwaker Judge