-^ J-. IN THE HON'BLE HI&M COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BIL^SPUR (C.&.} W.P.rs)NO. ^C^9 /2011 PETrTCONER ^y:': ,^^'^ ^" ^' Manharan Lal Sharma, Aged about 60 years, S/o Shri Ramadhar Sharma, Head Master, &overnment Primary School, Khairkhundi, B!ock BiJha, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2^ The Director PubJic Instructions Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Bi'laspur, District-BiSaspur (C.6.) 4." Biock Education Officer BilJ^a, bfstri'ct- BHaspur (C.&.) 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRCT- PETTTION UN5ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA > z HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAim AT BILA8PUR 8B : HON*BLB MR. JUSTICB PKITINKmi DIWAKBR PBTITIONER RB8PONDBNTS W.P.fSl.NO. 8629/2@ll Manharan Lal Sbarma versus State ofC.G. & Otfaers Shri K,S.Pawar^ coiinsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UMDBR ARTIGLE 226 @P THB CONSTITUTIOM OF INDIA ORDBR (22.09.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner m fhe present petitioii is that fhe petitioner was appointed as Dy. Teacher on a fiixed psy scate of Rs. 100-150 for a period oftwo years aad after completton of probatioai^ he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe coiinsel fbr fhe petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale wifh effect finom tibie date of mitiial appomtment and his case is squarely covered wifh nuiaber of decisicms passed by fhis Court aad also the judgment rendered by fhie M.P» State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A* >. 274S/S9 (SISeidhuSewivt Tadu & 56 Otfccrs 7s. iState ^fM.P. & Othcrs^where m it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are entilled for regular pay scale from fhe date of their inifrial appoiatnient, It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties fiiat fhe miatter was taken up by the State to tiie Apex Courtbut the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding ftxe decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froin fh.e date of fheir iaitial appoiataieiit. In view of the above subxnission made by the coiiasel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms ie, fhe petitioner is graxited Mberty to xnake a representation, if so advised, ia 2-6 fhe Ught of fhe aforesaM judgnient aiid ffae circiilar dated S, 1,2011 (Annexure P/2) aad ia tuniy tfae conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own iiierits and ia its perspective. If tfae petitioner stands on the saine footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (siipra) aad subsequentiy coafiraied by fhe Suprenie Court ia Speeial Leave Petition (Ciwil) N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entiUed to saacie reUefaccordiagly. It is expected fix>m the State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is xnade clear fhat fhis coiirt has aiot expressed any c^)inioxi on fhe merits of fhe case aad fhe aufhority concemed would be at Hberty to decide fhe representation strictiy ia accordaace with law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge