® Cagz W1 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (sy No. ‘30 1‘} OF 2011 (s.B.). PETITIONERS / 1. Dashrath Singh Chandrakar, S/o. late Shri Bhupal Singh Chandrakar, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Barbandha, Block Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C. G.) / 2. Rameshwar Prasad Dhruv, S/o. late shri Sudan Lal Dhruv, aged about 58 years, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School Asaunda, Block Tilda, District Raipur (C. G.) “a! RESPONDENTS VERSUS /:1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) /2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, Distt. Dharntari ' (C. G.) District Education Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE w CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ 3‘ HIGH €OURT OF CHHATTISGLkRi-I AT EILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR JU$T1CE PRITINKER. DIWAKER M W.P.§S!.N0. 5023 l 2011 Shti Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitionars. Shn' Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. AG. for the Stats. T PETIE‘IQN UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF TiiE CONSTITUTION #MVRIWM OF INDIA ORDER (30.08.2011: Grisvaxxcs of the {)ctjtioners in thc praSént petition is that the. pefitioners Ware appointed, as Depmy T€achersz on a, fixed pay Scale: of Rs. 100 for a yarioai of two years. and aftar cam‘plction of wobatiou, they ware granted rsgular pay sca1€ of Rs. 169—300. Conmntion of the counsel for the pemjonas i$ tha& they arc entitled for mgular pay scak with 6&mt from tbs (iate of initial appointment and his case i$ squarsly coverecl with number of dacisions passed by thi$ Court and also th€ judgment rcnd€rer1 by 111a NLP. State. Administrative Ttihunal, Jahalpur in O.A. N0. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State 0f M.P. & Others) Whcic in it has been hsld that Similarly placad‘ téachcrs art: , m, entitled for regular pay scaki £rom the (iate. of iheir initial appointmcnt. 1t is not di$puted hy both ma parties that the. matter was taken up by tha State to the: Apex Com”: but the aypeal was also diomissed by tho Apex Court upholding tho docision of the ’E‘Iibunal to the eifect that the ’I‘oachers/Aosistant Tcachors are antitiod for revular pay soak: from the date of their initial appointmont. in View of the above submiosion mado by tho comma} for the paxTies; 1&5 potition is distposed of in tho oama terms Le. the, RESPONDENTS v petitioners are granted libexty to make a representation, if So advised, in the lighr of The aforesaid jud gment and {he cimular dated 5. 1 .201 1 (Annexure P/ 5) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own men'ts and in its perspective. If the peh’fioner stands on, the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribune} in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civii) NO. 6892/98 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner “W may be entitied to same reh'ef accordingly. It is‘expeeted mm the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe 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 regresentation strictly in accordanceW . W Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge k