c-.^' s<ngte8ench IN_THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) NO.'S9iS—^2QlL PETITIONER: ^\^y -^•^^-'ss^"^'" ^^^^^. ¥S&--""">' '^^v^ Respondents ^,^,—-'~<^..^_ /^•^^\ Mahabeer Singh Sidar, son of Uday Bhaa Siagh Sidar, aged about 54 years, working-as. Upper Diyision Teacher, Govt. Middle Sehool Purani Basd Patthalgaon, Tahsil Patthal^on, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus 1T State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education OfBcer, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3.' Block Education OfBcer, Patthalgaon, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 41 Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i^y 1. PARTICULARS_OF THE PETITIONER(S) : As mendoned in the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OP THE RESPONDENTfS): As mentioned in the Cause title. nl &s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwater) Writ Petition fSI No. 3962 of 2011 PETmONER Mahabeer Singh Sidar VERSUS RESPQNDENTS StateofChhattisgarh and others Shri Harish Khuntlya, counset for the petitloner. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF XNDZA O RD E (25.07.2011) Grievance of the petitioner !n the present petition Is that the petitioner was appointed as deputy teacher vide order dated 10.10.1979 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 and after comptetion of probatlon, he was granted regular pay scate of Rs. 169-300. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scate with effect from the date of inltial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by thls Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Trlbunai, Jabalpur In OJt. f. 274S/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. Stat®of M.P. & Otfters) wherein it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 3. It is not disputed by both the partles that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismlssed by the Apex Court upholding the decision •^ -1- of the Trlbunal to the effect that the Teaehers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appolntment. 4, In view of the above submi^lon made by the counset for the parties, the petltion is dlsposed of in the same terms t.e. the petltioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) anct in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to conslder hls case on ifes own merits and in Its perspectlve. If the petltioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Admtnlstrative Trlbunal tn Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently conflrmed by the Supreme Court in Spectat Leave Petition (Civtt) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the peUtionermay be entitled to same relief accordingly. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suttable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that thls court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictty in accordance wlth law. SA- Pritinker Diwakar Judge