IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.^SINO.^^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ •••^^^ ,^^,....-^' Rameshwar Singh, S/o Late Shri Kedar Singh, aged about 55 years, Headmaster, Govt. Girls High School, Chendra, Blocl Udgi, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 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, Ambikapur, Distt. Surgua (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /.•'• Versus Rames'.h.war Sinj State of Chhattisgarh Ofh.ers Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for fhe peutioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the Sfate. Grievance of the petitioner iu liiie present petition is taat the petitioner was appointed as Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after coinpletion. of probatiou, he was graated •regular pay scaleofRs. 169-300. Conteation ofthe counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he is entifled for regular pay scale wifh effect froni fhe 'S^te of initial appom.tnient aa.d his case is squarely covered with niunber of decisions passed 'by fb-is Coiirt aud also th.e judginent reudered by fhe M.P. State Adininistrative Tribunal, Jabalpm in O.A. Nc. 3745/89 pSesdhukant Yadv. Ss 56 Others Vs. State sf3£.?.8s Others^where m it has been held ttiat simi1nr1y placed teachers are entitled for reglllar pay scale fi-om. fhe d.ate of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by bofh. fhe parties tb.at fhe matter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Coiirt tiut tlie appeal was also disruissed by fh.e Apex Coiirt upliolding fhe decision offhe Tribunal to the effect that fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fi-om. the date of their initial appointinent, In view of fhe above su&iaission ruade bv the counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of in. tbe same terms i.e. fbe petitioner is granted libertv to uiake a representation, if so advised, ta .<.-tA <i". • ^ ^"', s @ the light of tbe aforesaid judgnient and th.e circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexure P/ 2) and ia tum, the concemed respondent is directed to consMer tlieir case on its own inerits and in its perspective. If Uie petitioner stands on fhe same footing as per order pa.ssed by tlie State Adiaiaistrative Tribunal ro. Madhukaa.t Yadu (supra) and subsequently confinaed by fh.e Supreiue Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner niay be entifled to saiae relief accordingly. It is expected froin the State aufhorities to pass suitable order after dzie scrutiuy offhe facts. It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed any op:mion on fhe nierits of fhe case and tlie authority conceraed would be at. Uberty to decide th.e representation stricfly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritiisker Diwakei -.Jydge