x‘i; §e\$}"” $Ing!e. $ench /' ® 6/? 3% 5/ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR 1CHHAT'I’ISGARHt WRIT PETITION (S) No. éZl $ [201 1. PETITIONER: // Prem Prasad Pandey, son of Raghuraj Prasad Pandey, aged'about 55 years, working as Head Master, Govt. Primary School Toresiha, Block Baramkela, District Rajgarh, Chhattisgarh. versus Resgondents . / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, \ ‘ Through The Secretary Education Department, D.K.SJBhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education omcer, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. / 3. Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. > M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M ” £7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Han. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petitimi (S) No, 621a 0f 2m; PETITIONER Prem Prasad Pandey VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri C, J. K. Rao, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State. g WRIT PETITION UNQER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDM ORDER (19.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitiOner was appOinted as LOWEI’ DiViSion TeaChel’ 0n a fixed pay of Rs. 300 and after successfuily compieting the probation period, he was granted regular pay scaie. 2. Contention of the iearned counsei for the petitioner is that he is entitled for reguiar 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. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) 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 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 -qx teachers are entitied for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 4. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms Le. the petitioner 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-Z) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits 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. 5. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authoriw concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in ac ... ... cordance with law. Sdl— l Pritinker Diwaker L A Judge l i