Single EMmh C ~g'{0‘a L’@ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) No. ZZQ‘SI— of 2011 PETITIONER /’: Doctor Rao Meshram S/o Late Shri Ramaji Meshram, aged about 55 years, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Haladula, Block- Chhuriya‘ District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS /:1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ”,2. District Education V Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /"3. Block Education Officer, Block- Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETtTtON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. R M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.[S[.NO. 6695 [ 201 1 PETITIONER Doctor Rao Meshram VCI‘SllS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8r, Others Shn’ Vijay Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, RL. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the peu‘tioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of two years and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 150. 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. Na. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale mm 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 minal 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 grantsd liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.08 and in tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own men'ts 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 n‘om 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 authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge