•SWOl^ |^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (Sl No. ^^j /2011 / .^.k^ -y ^''\^'~^ ^•':^' ^" /\' ^••y ,€• r':^-" RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS l.^Bhagawat Prasad Rathia S/o Late Shri Jai Ram Rathia aged about 52 Years, presently working as Head Master at Govt. Middle School Sisringa, / Block ~ Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Udhaw Ram Yadav S/o Shri Vidyadhar Yadav aged about 58 Years, presently working as Head Master at Govt. Primary School Kodasia, Block - Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Raigarh (C.G.) Education Officer Block -Lailunga, Distt, .Raigarh (C.G.) :^ 4. Block Education Officer Block -Dharamjaigarh, r Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "1>;-. ^ 3. Block ^ u;5i ^l^^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HpN»BLEMR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR W.P.fSt.NO. 6624/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS versus Bhagawat Prasad Rathia and another StateofC.G.&Others Shri Anil Mouiya, counsel for fhe petitionera. Shri N.Nalia Roy, P.L, for the State. WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievaiice of the petitioners HI the present petition is fhat th.e petitioners were appoiated ia tfie year 1976 as Assistant Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a penod of one year and tliereafter in fhe year 1977 on a fixed pay scale ofRs. 150 for a period ofone year, After conipletion of probation, ia the year 1979 y fhey were graiited regiUar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for tlie petitioners is that fhey are eutitled for regular pay scale wifh effect from fhe date of iaitial appointaient aiid fheir case is squarely covered witii nuniber of decisious passed by this Court and also the judgnient rendered by fhe M.P. State Adrainistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0*A< No. 2745/89 (aSa^thukeiftt Yadu Sa S6 Others Vs. State of M.P. Ss Others) where ia it has been held fhat siaiilarly placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale frora fhe date of their iaitial appointment, It is not dispiited by bofh the parties that tlie niatter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but tlie appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision of fhe Tribiinal to fhe effect tliat the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitied for regular pay scale froin tiie date of fheir iaitial appoiiitxiient. ^ In view of the above subniission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of io. fhe same terms i,e. fhe petitioners are graiited Uberty to raake a representation, ifso advised, ia the light ofthe aforesaid judgraent aad the circular dated 5. l.2011 (Annexure P/2 ) and ia tum, the concemed rcspondent is directed to consider their case on its own nierits and ia its perspective. If the petitioner staads on fhe saoie footing as per order passed by fhe State Administrative Tribunal ia Madhiikant Yadu (supra) and subsequeufly coDflrmed by the Siiprenie Court in. Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entitied to sarae retief accord-ingly. It is expected froxn tihie State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiiiy of the facts. It is niade clear fhat tfcds court has not expressed aiiy opinion on flie merits of the case and Uie aiithority concemed would be at Hberty to decide the representation stdctiy in accordaace with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge