IGLEBENeH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. C(VA?> OF 2010. PETITIONER e^-^S^ .•we<*a"^ /»M^y.c<;^e<" .^^.,^^..--" ss^^rf'i"(v>l/°" p.^.^0- pies1' &s-^.--1 ^?^^^ &^-- ^.^ ?^m^ RESPONDENTS Parmeshwar Singh Ramteke, S/o. late Shri Kashi Nath Ramteke, aged about 60 years, Head Master, Govt. Primsiry School Matala (A), Antagarh, Block- Antagarh, District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS :!/ Sta.tc of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secrefary, , Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Antagarh, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA —78 *11*I^IT ^HI^ ^ST '*lNl<y1'4, ^•<ll-(-)ll<o, fs|diy;j,< ..U..6...^:)...^.:.6.t.<tl.L(f •^ ^.200 ^I^T '(T5W ( yif^^T) 311^1 '5RT R^ich WT37T^T9FRW ^RTTW^rf^H 3TT^T SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTiCE PRITH 25.10,2010 Shn Soiakac.t Ve.mia. co'ans Stid SumeshBajaj, Dy, G,A Grievance of the petitioner th.e petitionerwas-appom.ted.as D; of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two probationy he was granted regular Coatention of fhe counsel f entitied for regular pay scale witl appoiatnxent and her case is sqi] decisions passed by this Court ar by fhe M.P. State Admmistrative 1 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 5( Others) whereiri it has beeu held| are entitled for regular pay scale) apponitment. It is not disputed by botlx t| taken up by the State to fhe Apex] dismissed by the Apex (>)urt ^ TribtiBal to the elTecf that fhe entitled for regular pay scale ^ appomtinent. <=r»i<i(<n<^iWRF^f"? 'fec^ <Fa1^1< i73tfiW3:^T KER DIWAKBR >el for the petitiouer. for the State. |xt tb.e present petition is th.at /". Teacher on a fixed pay sc^xle years arsd after completion of payscaleofRs. 169-300. )r the petitioner is that she is eifect from, the date of iiiitial arely covered with nuxaber of d also fhe judgm-ent rendered 'ribiuial^ Jabalpur ia 0«A< No. > Otheys Vs. State of M.P. & that siimlarly placed teachers from flie date of thek XDitial |ie parties that the ina.tter was |Court but the appeal wa.s also tpholdiag fhe decision of.the Te^.chers/Assistaia.t Teachers QT€ boni tl'ie date of their m.iti.al »^«=~^-.^,L..a ;C—78 '^sr ^F4t^!^, y>Tii-M<i^, fcidi'y^< . . 1^1. O C5,)6\(?o- <o\^^ i (P W^ff^RN?"""^'"""""""^""""""""""^ 200 ^n^i TWR> (yii^^) 3n^r ^t f^ThF (CT ^fl^r 9n*iicr> „». '^^TTWRf^? ^^f In view of fhe above subxnis the parties, tlie petition is dispose •A .^, petitioner is granted liberty to advised, in the light of the aibres^ dated 27.12.2008 (Annexiire P/ 6 s'espondent is directed to conside: and iii its perspective. If tiie p footing as per order passed by th ic Madhukant Yadu (supra) aiid s Siipreiae Court iri Special Leave I order dated 3.1.1995, the reUef accordmgly. petitic|ner It is expected froxn the sta1 order after due scnitiny oftl.ie. fad It is made cleai* that this opiaion cn nierits of fhe case would be at liberty to decide ^ accordaace wifh law. ^t<i(<n^nli ^w<^^ fe^ <F»i<^i< ^3ffiR3?lt^T •sion siade by the counsel for d ofin. fhe saiii-e terms i.e. &e aake a representatioii, if so dd ju.d.gm.ent and tls.e crrcular an.d ia. tnrB., the concenied their case on its own merits etitioner stand on the same e Ste.te Adniinistra-te Tribunal ubsequentity confiroied by the 'etition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by niay be entitled to same |e autliorities to pass suitable ts, pourt has not expressed aay kad fhe autliority concenied ^he representation strictiy iis Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge