^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSl N0. ^ ^^ /2010 PETITIONER .^sSy '^••<\^' ^^^>r l^ ^^ ^•- RESPONDENTS <^- is/^_, ,,,^i ||o|ls&jt^^u^ J 1 ltK. ^?^i^^'^ : Sachchida Nand Patnaik, S/o Chakradhar Patnaik, aged about 51 years, Govt. Middle School Harijan Mohalla, Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt. -Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. •^ ^•;" ^ ;T i y f^ ' ^.^ss^.. % \:^y%i "s^ ^Tpn^zr, ^Til^^s<o, f^my ^^.A^£r..L^^:.±^r^a^ ^PT^ff'gRnW"""^""'^"'1'"1" ' " "WL200 ^H^T 'q^RT (yi(^<^T) 3^T ^? fqiW WT W^ sti^Jch iTRnw^rft^^it^ SB : HOrBLB MR. JUSTECE PmfINKER DIWAKBR 29.10.2010 Shri Somkaiit Verma. counsk Shri.Vivek Slianna, P,L, for 'l fer flie petitioner. tiie State. Grievaii.ee of th.e petitioner the petition.er wa:s' appomted as pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a j| completion of probation, he wa.s 169-300. the •preseut petition. is th.at ^ssistan.t Teaclier on a fix:e-d leriod of two vears aiid after gi|£mtedregiilar pay scale of Rs. an(l Contentiou of tlie coiinsel i1 en.titled for rcgular pay scal.e witii| appointm.ent and his case is squ^ decisions passed by this Coiirt by tlie M.P, State Admiaistrative 2745/89 |Madhukant Yadu & Sfi| Others) whereia ith.as been held are entitled for regular pay scale appointment. It is not disputed by botli taken up by the State to the Apex dismissed by the Apex Court: u] Tnbunal to the effect that the Te^ entitled for regulai* pa.y sca.ie appomtment. ^l^t^^ll 'RTR^f "^ fs^l <F3l^l< ^^ffiR^l^T J)T the petitioiier is tJiat he is leffect from. the date ofinitial. ferely covered wifh. number of also the judgm.ent rendercd T|:ibziual, Jabalpur iti O.A. No. Others Vs. State of M.P. & ^hat similaily placed teachers Ifrom the da-te of their initial tde tl|e parties that flie m.atter was pourt- but the appeal was also ^holdiiig the decision of the ^hers/Assistaiit Teachers ai'e frfcra. the date of th.eir iDJ.ti.al ^ XI-HC—78 MWWl d»W^ ^Sf -ql^l^A), ^Tl1-(HII<o, fs|dl-(-llj>< ^........W,.£.L^..^......6^^(, ^TI^T 'q^RT ( yif^q^T) S^^ ^?T f<tlich WT ^T^T sib^w ^. "(TCTW^rf^ 3?i^?Y submi^siou In view of the above the pailies, the petition is dispos^d petitioner is granted Iibemr to advised, ia the Ught of tlie aibrestud dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/^ respondent is directed to conside|r aiid in its perspective. If tlxe ]{ footiiig as per order passed by t'lj in Madhukaiit Yadu (supra) aiid Suprenie C.ourt iii Special Lea.ve order dated 3.1.1995, the 33etiti<J! reUef accordijagly, It is expected from. the staj order after due sciTitiny of the facfts It is made clear that fliis opiiiion on merits of the case would be at Mberty to decide accordaDce witli law. 4>l^?d^1'i '^W^ff'? 'fexst ipsi^K ^^RR^T^T inade by tlie counsel for ld ofiathe same terms i.e.the make a representa.t.i.on, if so ai.cl jiidgment aiid the circiilar ») aod in. turo., th.e coB-cero.ed tlieir ca.se on' its own m.eri.ts ^etitioner staiid on the same ie Stale Adrainistrate Tribunal subsequently confirm^d by fhe Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by mer niay be entitled'to same fce autliorities to pass suitable Court has not expressed aay and tlie authorit^ conceiTied the representation strictly in. ^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge