@9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.{S[.NO. 7802120 1 1 Shn' S.K.Thomas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ghandresh Shn‘vastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 10(5—150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date /of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Cotu‘t and also the jud gment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. Na. 2745/89 (.Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. state ofMP. & Others) where in it has been held that 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 Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of‘ in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in PETXTIONER Sahdev Ram Sahu Versus RESPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh the light of ths aforssaid judgment and the circuiar dated 31.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their 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 ’I‘n‘bunal in. Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently connrmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated O3.0l.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. lt is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. V Sd/- i Pritinker Diwaker Judge