WwQw Single Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP QR w.r.(smo. W9)\ gen Kamal Prasad Dubcy S/o Lam: Makhan Lal Dubey, aged about. 58 years, occupation service, posted as Head Master, Government Primary School. Budhwara, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS v1. State of C.G. through the Secrmary School Education Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C . G. 2.The District Education ()ffim-r, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.(}. mmgzmm] I fR’g‘v PETITIONER , I 3?: r n‘A ag‘v 3. The Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur C.G. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22§ QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR I§SQE QF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE QE MANDAMUSICERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONIQRDELB IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. / @ ga WW: §WTY€Q W matWWMW»)mauL’L€ 200 m W (iaf‘i’w') mmm am mm W 1m 311% W3;%%7 WWW m 8.3.: HON’BLE MR. JU$TICE PM’PINKER DIWAKER 94.080201l Shri Dashrafh Prajapati, cmmsal fer the petitimisr. Shn' N.Naha Roy, EL. for ths $tate. Grievanca of the patitior‘gr, in tha Fmsent paiifion is that the petitioner was appomtedk as Deputy Téacher on a fixaii pay ‘52:“ scale of Rs. 10D~150 for a period of two years and after campietion of probation, ha was granted regular fay scak: Qf I ‘ Rs. 169-300. Contentien of tha counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for reguiar pay scale with effect from the date of initial ap9oiotment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Coun and aleo the judgmexlt rendered by the M.P‘ State Administrative Tn'buna], Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 {Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. state 0f M.P. & Others) where. in it has beeo held mat similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Cc mt upholding the decision of the //>\ Tribunal to the edect that the Teachers] Assistant Teachers are I; entitled for regular pay scale h‘om the date of their initial X i appointment. xx-Hc 78 3a warm, gm W ummm 200 J I TF1 mm (wiww) ‘ T 1mwfw$ $211mm W ufsa aném We?WW ‘ W I‘m 2‘6 Wan 31W In View of thc above s bmission made by the cmmsel for the parties, the patition is ispcsed of in the same terms i.€. the petitioner is granted lib rty to make a representation, if so \K‘ ./ advisec'i? in the light of the oresaid judgment 311d the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Amexure P! 2} and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to c sider their case on its own men'tS and in its perspective. if e petitioner stands on the same order ed by the State Admin§strative footieg as per pas by Triburlal in Madhukant ado {supra} aud subsequently cozmnnecl by the Suprem Court in Special Leave Petition {Civil} NO. 6892;93 by or er dateti 03.01.95, the petitionwr may be exitmed to same reEr-f accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable onier after due scrutiny of the £acts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed ariy opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at Eberty to decide the represemation strictly iii accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Diwakar Judge