iLE 8E IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURT OF CHHATFIS^ARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) w PETmONER : ^ \^^ •^^ ^-.€^^""" ^^^"" .^•<" .P. (S)NO. (^0| /2011 ^y RESPONDENTS i / Smt. Indu Pandey @ Smt. Indu Tiwari, aged about 52 years, W/o Shri Jankisharan Pandey. Head Mistress, Government pn'mary Schoo! Jonki, B!ock Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schoo! Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Dsrector Public Instructions 3. District Education Officer, Biiaspur, District-Bi'Iaspur (C.^.) 4: Block Education Officer Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, BiJQSpur (C.G.) 9 ^f ^ WRITPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNSTrruzoN OF INDIA < HEGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICB PR2TINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RB8PO»rDENT8 W.P.ISl.NO. 6301/2011 S2nt, Indu Pan-dey @ Smt. Indii Tiv^ari versus State ofC.G. & Otliers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for tlie petitioiier. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A, for tlie State, WRIT ?®TITIO»1VNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTITUTION OF I3JD2A ORDBR (04.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in fh-e present petition is fhat the petition.er was appointed ia the year 1977 as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of oae year aii.d fhereafter in tJie year 1978 on a fixed pay scale ofRs, 150 for a period ofone year. After conipletion of probaUon, in fhe year 1979 y she was graated regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300, Contention of ttie counsel for the petitioner is fhat she is entifled for regular pay scale wifh eifect froin fhe date of iaitial appoiatDient and her case is squarely covered witli nusxiber of decisions passed by this Court and also the jiidgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Adiaiaistorative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0-A* No. 2745/89 (aXeidhukfiftt Yctdu Ss 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & CSthers) where ia it has been held fhat similarty placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale fix>m the date of their iaitial appomtment. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat fhe raatter was taken up by fhe State to tlie Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision of tiie Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froia the date of fheir iaitial appoiatiaent. ?i2»»£cs» ^. \""f^// '<%..-.. "s^r' ^.G In view of the above submission made by fhe counsel for the parties, the petitlon is disposed of m the same terms i,e, tibe petitioner is graiited Uberty to miake a representation, tf so advised, ia the Ught of the aforesaid judgiaent aad tlie circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2 ) aiid m tum, th.e conceraed respondent is directed to consider her case on its own raerits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner staads on th.e saoie footing as per order passed by the State Adiaiaistrative Tribunal ia- Madhukaot Yadu (aupra) aad subsequenfly conftmied by fhe Suprexne Court nx Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inay be entitled to sauie reUef accordiagly. It is expected froxa fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scratmy of fhe facts, It is inade clear that tliis court has uot expressed any opiiiion on fhe xuierits of fh.e case and the aufhonty concemed would be at Ubeit}7 to decide fhe representation stdctly in accordance wifhi law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge