h/I b gmgm wgmm (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR1T PETITION (S) No.7axs’0f 2011 / PETITIONER: Phoolchand Chandel S/o Shrl Dhanesh Ram Chandel aged about 56 years Pr1nc1pal Govt. Middle School Pondi, Block Balod, Dist- Dhamtari (C.G‘) 3 / VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ’Phe State of Chhattisgath, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Zfhe Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, /Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W m m (Kma) mmfwm‘ 6241mm WW§WW $afmm mafam SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan 09-1 2-2011 Shri S.K.Thomas, counsel for t' e petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P nei Lawyer for the $tate on advance copy. Learned counsel for the p ,titioner submits that in ihe cause titie, $hrivastava, J. inadvertently, in place of District — Durg, it has been written District - Dhamtari whereas the petitioner is posted in District -— Durg. In that regard, the statement is placed on record. finaliy‘ With the consent of learned ounsel for the parties, the matter is heard Learned counsel appearing for he petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether, the p itioner is entitied to regular pay scaie with effect from the date of initial appointm nt or after completion of probation period. The issue involved herein wa considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur in .A.No.2745i89 (Madhukant Y’adu and 5d others v. State of MP. & others), herein. it was held that the simiiariy situated teachers are entitled to reguiar pa scaie with effect from the date of initial appointment. it is not disputed by both the arties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the ap eal was aiso dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribun l to the effect that the teachers I Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scaie from the date of their initial appointment. Accordingiy, the petitioner is g anted iiberty to make representation raising aii his grievances, in the iight of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05i01i201 1, and in turn, the concerne respondent is directed to consider the case amwm wmm ww f€ém Qw‘aimm Deepli on its own merits and its perspecti as per order passed by the $ta‘ (Supra) and suB‘sequently confm .ve. if the hetitioner stands on the same footing e Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu ned by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civii) No.6892f93 by order dated 03/01I95, the petitioner may be entitied to same relief‘ackcordingiy. scrutiny Efgt'he‘f’ac‘ts. in view of foregoing, this pe tition is r‘maiiy disposed off. i é xrm‘a‘h Mir: géwrmu, vitamins—"w 5/1 4 omz 1201 1—1 ,so,ooo. Sd/~ Mvanindra Mohan Shrivastaya Judge I“ it is expected from the State authorities to pass suitabte order after due