a^ ^ Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^lv' ^/2011. PETITIONER: ^^i5^ ^S^^5^A""^.-\ ,^^°s«^1 ^'^^"...^•^ ^^' Araar Sai Paikra, son of Late Lal Paikra, aged about 50 years, working in.f4diie as Head Master,/?pri^ary School, Navapara, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ^.*: ^69'"' :.....---7^ versus Respondents 1. "State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2/ Commissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhatfisgarh. 4.- Block Education Officer, Batouli, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRn* PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 ©I<" E CONSTITUTION OF IN0TA t-- ^..^^te^. . ••,.:^ l,h^.li i . h^ / '%j^Jy^/ ^- %• l( HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Mon. Mr. Jystice Pritinker Diwaker) . Writ Petition fSI No. 4147 of 2011 PETITIONER Amar Sai Paikra VERSUS RESPONDENTS State Qf Chhattlsgarh and others ^irl Marish Khuntlya/ counset for the petltloner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. for the State. WRTT permoN UNDER ARTici-e 226 oi5 THB CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA ORDER (01.08.2011) Grievance ofthe petitioner in the present petltion is that the petitioner was appotnted as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after succassfully completint the probation period, he was grantect regular pay scale. 2. Contention ©fthe counsel for the petltKmer is that he is entitled for regular pay scale wlth effect from the date of inltial appointment and his case is squapely co^ red wlth number of declsions passed by this Court ancl aiso the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administpative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OJI. Wo- 274S/89 (Madliulcant Vaehs & S6 Others Vs. State of M.P. Sk Otlleis) whereln It has b^en held that similarly placed teachers are entltled for regMtap pay scate from the date of their initlal appointmenfc 3. It is not disputed by both the partles that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court txit the appeal was atso dismissed by the Apex Court upholdtng the declslen of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant ^ (S^ .^2-- Teachers are entitled for regutar pay scale from the date <rf their jnitialappointment. 4. In view of the above submlsslon made by tha counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitloner is granted llberty to make a representation, If so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12,2008 (Annexure P-2) and in turn, the concemed responctent ts directed to conslcler his ease on it own merits and in Its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footlng as per order passed by ttie State Adminlstrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Speciat Leave Petition (Civit) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petittoner may be entitled to same reti^f accorctingly. 5. It is expected from the State authorltles to pass suit^te order after due scrutiny of the facts. 6. It is made clear ttiat thls court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorlty concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strtctly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge