« SingleBeftcft C /^ • (00 / ,.--' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. fcfcf ^/2011. PETITIONER: Respondents v^}>^ L\^^'\ -4%^' .•y>^ ^...-•" <^Santrain Karsh, son of Karthik Ram Karsh, aged about 58 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Girls High School, Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus /l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. ^2. Distorict Education Officer, District B^oda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ^3. Block Education Officer, Kasdole, Distiict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^4. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTn*UTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON>BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKBR PETITIONBR RESPONDBNT8 W.P.tSl.NO. 6614/2011 Saiitram Karsh versus State ofC.G. 85 Others ^' L-» Shri K.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Praveen Das, Dy, G.A, for ftie State, WKIT PBTITION UHDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTETUTION OF INDSA ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner iii fhe present petition is that fhe petitioner was appoiated ta tihie year 1975 as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after conipletion of probation, m flie year 1978, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs, 169-300. Contention of tlie counsel for the petitloner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale wifh effect froni the date of initial appointment aad his case is squarely covered wifh nunxber of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgnient rcndered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m 0*A. N0. 274S/89 ^Miadhafeant Yadu Ss 56 Others Vs. State qfM.P»& Others^ where ia it has been held fhat smiUarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni fhe date offheir iaitial appoiatment It is not disputed by bofh. fhe parties fhat the niatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdrag the decision of tlie Tribiinal to fhe efifect that fhe Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitled for regulai' pay scale froni the date of fhieir initial appoiataient, In view of ftie above subinission niade by fhe couusel for fhe parties, ttie petitiou is disposed of ia fhe same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, ia ...^^^ ^^ff^-. ^ M the light of fhe aforesaid judgnient aad the circular dated 5.1,2011 (Aunexure P/2 ) aad ia tura, fhe conceraed respondent is dn^cted to consider his case on its own iiierits aad in. its perspective, If the petitioner staads on fhe same footing as per order passed by fhe State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Suprerae Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner niay be entitled to saaie reUef accordiagly. It is expected froia fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiny ofthe facts. It is raade clear that fhis court has not expressed aiiy opiixion on ttie nierits of the case and fhe aufhority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation storictly in accordance wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge