W Ln? / @ /’—-\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHAT'I‘ISGARH WRIT PETITION (S) No.5‘0w /201 1. PETITIONER: /. W Smt.Chameli Namdev, wife of Shri Sanfosh Kumar, worldng as Upper Division Teacher, Kanya Ashram Shala, Korba, Distn‘ct Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretaxy Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ‘ /2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Chhattisgarh. EBLQAKI/ e3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal ‘ Welfare Department, Korba, Chhattisgarh. /4. Block Education Officer, KOrba, Block Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA n PETIT!&NER MW V81‘SuS HIGH C URT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR SB : EON’BLE MR. JUSTXCE PRXTINKER DIWAKER RE$PO~NDENTS Shri C.J.K.Rao, counsd far the petitioner. Shn‘ Yashwant Singh Thelmr, Dy. A. G. for me State. WRIT PETXTIOM UMBER AR’NCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITIYPION OF INDIA ORDER (02.09.2011) Grievance of the petitionar in the pressnt pefitjon is that the petitioner was amminted as Deputy Teacher 0:1 a fvmd pay Scaie of Rs. 150 for a period of two yaars and after completion of probation, he was giantod wgular pay seals of Rs. 169—300. Contomion of the counsel for the petit'mner i3 That he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initia} appoimmem and his case is squarehr coveied with number of decisions passed by this Conn and also the jud gment rendered by The MP. State Administxau've Tribunai, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhulcant Yadu gr. 56 Others Vs} State ofM.P. & othersmherc m it. has. been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from rhe date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by boih 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 Tn‘lnmal to the effect that the TeachersjAssistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of' their initial appointment. In View of the above submission matie by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the. petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in wizgsmo. 503g! 201 1 Smt. Chameli Namciev State of (1G. 5a. Others the light of the afoxEsaid judgment and the circuEar dated 27. }.2.’.ZOO8 (Anmixure. P/ '2) amd i11 tum, the concerned respondant is directed to consider his case on its own maits and in its perspectiva. If the. petitioner stands on the sams facting as per Omar paSSed by the State Administmtive Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confumed by the Supreme Ceurt in Specia} Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 08.01.95, the petitianer may be entitied to same xelief accorfiingly. It iS expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due Serutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opmion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in, accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge