'^^' ^^'" ^t£*", .^ ist-f' I^'THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W, P, (S) N0. -T^70 /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rajaram Gupta S/o Shri Amardayal Sao, aged about 57 years, Headmaster, Govt, Middle Schoot, Patratu, Block Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS l.r 2. 3. ^' 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur(C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapuri'Distt. Surgua (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HONSBLB MR. JVSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.tSl.NO. 7550/2011 Versus Rajaraia Gupta State of Chiiattisgarh Ss Ofhers Shri Raliul Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shi-i Bhaskar Pv'asi, P.L. for the State. $15.12.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner in the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after coinpletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scaleofRs. 169-300. Conteation of the counsel jbr the petitioner is that he is ectitled for regiilar pay scale with effect froin. the datfe of iaitial appouituient and his case is squarely covered with niunber of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also the judgm.ent rendered by the M.P. State Admmisti-a.tive Tribimal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 fSSaS.hvs.ka.nt Yadsi & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that. sim.uarly placed teachers are entifted for regular pay scale from. tbfi da.tc of fheir iiiitial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties fhat tlie raatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Coiirt but fhe appeal was also disinissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision of the Tribunal to fhe efi'ect that fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachei-s aie entitled for regular pay scale fi-oiu the date of their iriitial appointinent. In view of the above subinission inade bv th.e counsel for the parties, tbe petition is disposed of in. the ssine tenns i.e. the petitioner is granted liberh- to m.ake a representation, if so advised, ia ^' ^^'-gs;^;.. ^ I? • t^ ^ !:./ ^x^ fhe light of the aforesaid judginent and fhe circular dated 27.12.08 (Aiuiexure P/ 2) aad ia tura, tlie concemed respondent is directed to consMer fheir case on its own inerits and in its perspecti.ve. If the petitioner stands on the saiue footing as per order passed by fhe State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supraj and subsequenfly confinned by ttie Suprem-e Court in Special Leave Petition (CivU) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioaer inay be en.titl.ed to same retief accordirigly. It is expected froiu fhe State authoriti.es to pass suitable order after due scrutuiy of fhe facts. It is niade clear fhat this court has not expressed any op'mion on fhe inerits of fhe case aud fh.e authority concemed would be at libei-t;r to decide fb.e representation strictly in. accordance wifh law. Sd/- PritinSier Diwaker .Judge