IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. ^.?95. W.P. (S)No....:i.?r.Z".....2011 PETITIONER Dhiraj Ram Kotre S/o Shri PardeshiramKotre Aged 54 Years, Head Master Primary School Saragbundia (Shivpur) Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 6^"..A'^fe^... ^^•^^-"^. rv?^>€^"^ .<;s*"~ ^•<\^' ^0-'" i.'yA" ...•;' ^^y..--""fy' WRIT PETITION (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) (2) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba ( C.G.) UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. •.^f-iW.^ijiaajs^.... s'\. "';^rw-' "^^ o? 8 SB : HON'BLB M5. JU8TICE Pai'TINKER DIWAICER versus Dhirai Raai Kotre State of Chtiattisgarh &• otiiers Shii Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for tiie petitioner. Shri ShashaiikThakui-, P.L. for the State. (02.12.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner in the present petidon is that tiie petitioner was tnitially appoiated as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 aud after coiupletion of probatioa, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fh.e petitioner is that he is entifled for xsgular pay scale wifb. efifect frora ftie date of iaitia] appointment and his case is squarely covered with nuruber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also ftie judgiaent rendered by fh.e M.P. State Adniiaistratlve Tribunal, Jabalpur in O^A. No. 374S/S9 ^Seidhuktint yadu & 56 (Xhers Vs. Stute ofM.P. & OthersJ where m it has been held fhat smulariy placed teachers are eiititled for regular pay scate from the date of their iaitial appoiiitment. It is not disputed by bofh the parties fhat fhe m.atter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disnaissed by fhe Apex Court upholding the decision offhe Tribunal to fbe efiect that tlie Teachers/Assistant Teachers arc entitled for i-egulai' pay scale fi-oin fhe date of their iuitial appom.txiient. f in view of tbe above subraission inade by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in fhe saiue ferms i.e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to inake a representation, tf so advised, in. tUe light of the aforesaid judgment aad t&e circiu.ai· dated 27. 12.2008 {Annexure P/5) and ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to : i*^. -'1:1 'v ti^liiiS^ consider his case ou its own tuerits and iu its perspective. If the petitioner staads on thc sarae footing as per order passed by the State Adininistrative Tribuual in Madhukaut Yadu (supra) and subsequenfly confirm.ed by the Suprenie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civffl N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner raav be entifled to same relief accordinglv. It is expected from fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of fhe facts. It is m.ade clear that tlus court has not expressed aay opiiuon on the inerits of fh.e case and fhe authoritv concemed would be at libert^" to decide the representation strictly ia accordaB.ee vid.th law. Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge