Sin@i@ @Eqch 0 «F4 1W1“ @7 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 7822 W.P. S NO. ‘ 2011 PETITIONER ’/ Ramchandra Prasad Yadav S/o Mahawar Prasad Yadav, aged about 55 years, Headmaster, Govt. Girls High School, Baikona, Biock Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) ,3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, Distt. Surgua (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (\L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUS'HCE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.1s;.No. 7822/2011 PETII’NONER Ramchandra Prasad Yadav Versus RESPONDENT$ Starr: of Chhattisgarh 85 Other5 Shri Rahu} Mishra, coun s61 far the petitioner. Shri Chemdresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (16.12.2011) Gri€vancc of the perifioner in the present p€titiou is that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100— 150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169—300. Contemion of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitlezi for regular pay scale with e§ect from the date. of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. Stare Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (IHadhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. 8a Others) where in it has been held That similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from 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 eti‘ect that the Teachers] Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made bV the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in @ thf: light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.08 (Annexare P/ 2) and in turn, thc concerned mspondent is directed to consider their cast on its own merits and in its pelspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently cohfu‘med by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected &om the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts, It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. s5). ‘ " Pritinker Diwaker Judge t L l r I M wmmm%Wuw“m :wwmmwwwlJl mm W.WW.. a