~ . t- . |a° 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. Co°)(yl\ OF 2011. PETITIONER w^"\. ^iW"''' ...'•** ^...'•/'V.^''^ v"' ^.^••^v' '.>^^-y" ^^y' •^:....- RESPONDENTS Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw, W/o. Shri Bharat lal Dhruw, aged about 52 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Sambalpur, Block Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS ^' : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Offlcer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ -A HIQH COURT OP CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR SB^HON^BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITENKBR DIWAKER PSTITIONER REBPONDBNTs W.P..i|Si.||0^69©4j?20M Smt. Rukh.33iani Dhniw versus State of Chhattisgsj-li 85 Otliers Shri Soiix'kaiit Vei'm.a, couxi.sel for tlie pefcitioner, ShriN.NahaRoy, P.L. forthe State. WRIT PBTITIOH UNDER ARTICLB 226 QP THB CQNSTlTUTSQiI OF INDIA ORDER (24.11.2011) Grievaace of fhe petitioner ia fhe present petition is tliat fhe petitiouer was appoiated as Deputy Teacher ou a flxed pay scale of Rs. 100 aad after conipletion of probation, she was grarited regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fhe petitioner is that she is entitted for regular pay scale wifh. efiect froia fhe date of iiiitial appoiatxaent and her case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also fhe judginent rendered by fhe M.P, State Adxniaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. JVo. 2745/89 (Mitdhukattt Yddu Ss S6 Others Vs. State sf M.P. & Others) where ia it has been held that smiilarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from the date of iheir iiiitial appoin-tsiient. It is not disputed by botih. the parties that fhe inatter was taken up by the State to tiie Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Coiirt upholdmg the decisiou of the Tribunal to fhe effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Tea.chers ai'e entitled for regular pay scale from fhe date of their niitial appoiatment. In view of the above siibniission raade by tlie counsel fbr the parties, tihe petition is disposed of in. fhe sanie tei-Bis i,e. tlie ^.ss^ /'£^ I 1 '^•^[T^ ^' '%s^/' petitioner is graated liberty to inake a representation, if so advised, m fhe Ught of fhe aforesaid judgnient and the circular dated 5.1,2011 (Annexure P/5) aiid ia tura, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider her case on its owu inerits and in its perspective, If the petitioaer stands on tbe saiae footing as per order passed by the State Adiniaistrative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) aod siibsequently confirmed by fhe Supreine Court io Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner raay be entitted to same reUef accordiagly. It is expected froni the State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiny offhe facts. It is raade clear that fhis coiirt has not expressed aay opniion 011 fhe nierits of fhe case and the auttiority concemed would be at liberty to decide tlie representation suictiy ia accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge