‘7@ S§§é£LE $EE§QH W BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURr OF CR AT BILASPUR w P (S) No W; of201 TITIONER : 6evnarayan Pal, S/o Late Shri ' Baratu’ram, aged about 5.1 years, Upper ‘ :DIVISIon eacher Government Glr|s Middle School Karhrbhadar Block Balod Dlstrlct— Durg(CG)‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS " State of Chhattlsgarh Through the _ Secretary, Department of School Education DKS Bhawan Ralpur (CG) 2. Dlstrlct Education Officer Durg, Dlstnct Durg (C G ) 3.( Block Edgcanon Officer, Block— Balod, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ' CONSTlTUTlON OF INDIA HHATTISGAH o PE T yox W 111 2 SB ‘: KON’BLE MR. JU3TI¢E PRI’I‘INKER ‘DIWAKER 24. 1 1.2010 3 Shri Gautam Khetrapal, el for the peiitioner. Shxi Ajit Singh, P.L. for th State, 11 Gn'evance of the petitionc in the pmsent petition i3 that the petitioner was appointed AssiStant Teacher on a med pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a pexiod of two years and ai‘ter completion of probation, he was 169-300. ¢ tcgi regular pay scale of Rs. Contcnu'on of the counsel for the petih'oner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale w e§ect from the date of mmal appointment and his case is sq arely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court d also the judgment mndemd by the M.P. State Administrative ribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhuhmt Yadu & 6 Others Vs. state of M.P. & Others)‘wherein it has been‘hel that similarly placed teachers axe entitled for regular pay s Eom the date of their mmal appointment. It-is not disputed by both parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Ap Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court pholding the decision of the Tribunal to the en'ect that the 'l" chem/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale ‘ m the date of their Initial appointment. i l '..L c s i c e s1on made by the counsel for the partms the petttlon 1s d1spo ed of m the same terms 1 c the petmoner ls granted llberty t make a‘mpmsentatlon, 1f so adv1sed 1n the hght of the afo sald Judgment and the cucular dated 27 12 2008 and in the concerned respondent 1s directed to consider their case on '1ts own merite and 1n Its perspec11've. If the petitioner stz nds on the same foou'ng as‘per‘ order passed by the State Ad ' hate Tnbunal 1n Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequen y conm‘med by the Supreme Court 1n Spec1al Leave Penna (C1v11) No 6892/93 by order dated 3 1 1995 the pehuoner may be enntled to same rehef accordmgly It 1s expected mm the s te author-mes to pass smtable order after due 3cmtmy of the mots It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide; the repre‘sent‘au'on strictly in accordance with law. f Prltmker Dlwaker Judge 1' Sd/- r M". ' ”LWW //A 's