Q3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(s),No. Lgqél? /2011 PETITIONER PRaj Laxmi Naidu, Aged abou‘r 58 year's, W/o LaTe A.S.P.Rao, Head Mistress, Governmem‘ KalawaTi Middle School Ko’ra Block Ko‘ra, Disf‘r. Bilaspur (6.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS = Slate of Chhalflsgarh Through Secre’rary, School Educa’rion Departmen’r D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur‘ (C.G.) The Director Public Insi’rucfions Raipur (C.G.) Dis‘rric‘r Educaiion officer Bilaspur‘, DisTT. Bilaspur (C.G.) Join’r Direclor‘, Treasury, accounis' l pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'HDGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOII’BLE MR. JUB'H“ PRITINKIR DIWAKER‘ W.P4S).NO. 5465I201 1 PETITIONER P.Raj Laxmi Naidu RESPONDEIITS State of C.G, as Others Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the pcwioncr. Shri Ya§hwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OOHMITUTIOI OF INDIA oRnER (16.09301 1) Griavance of the petitioner in the present petin‘on is that the peu'tioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a Med pay scale of Rs. 100—150 for a period of two years and after completion of pmbation, she was gamed regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petiu'oner is that she is enh‘tled for mgular pay scale with ehe‘ct hom the date of initial appointment and her case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Adminisu‘au've Tribunal, Jabalpur in OJ. NO. 2745/89 Mukaut Yadu & 56 Other, Vs. m a] M. Q Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hem the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the en‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale hem the date of their initial appointment. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the peu'tion is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the ® petitioner is granted liberty to make a mprescntau'on, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) and in turn, the concerned mspondmt is directed to consider their case on its own men‘ts and in its pexspcctive. if the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administtative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petiu'on (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petin'oner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is‘expected nom the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scruu'ny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cae and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representan’on strictly in accordance with law. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge