pj2-2^-o f?% E?^ '^. §s^. t^gs' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTF PEn-ITlON (Sl Na. ^^ /2010 PETITIONERS -^®^ «»" n.'..;-' ^ ^••'' ^.'- y6'"' ^ RESPONDENTS: 1. Manmohan Singh Rathiya S/o Shri Chhatrapal Singh Rathiya, aged about 55 Years, occupation Head Master, in Govt.. Middle School Pharkanara Block Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) , 2. Ratthu Ram Khunte S/o Shri Tij Ram Khynte, aged about 54 Years'; occupation Head Master, in Govt. Middle School Paraskol Bloc.k Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS y.. . __^. • .. -, ' ! 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deportment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) ^ ; :'. 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer Block Kharsia, Distt. T Raigarh(C.G.) Wim>UNDERARTIC 2260lFTHECONStITUTIONOF INDIA Tt^'-ttfWaii^f ..3SS5B -HC-22 •Svl •^ffqRTq, •^ftOTS. faitl'My HWfl ibtl^ 3'n^r 'IRRR ..jp.).£^o.. •^e^/^, 'WI. 200 fq^I' sn^r^i h-U'h Sf^f wiiwnfia 3Ti^T ^+fli^? -yf^d SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICBPRITt 04.12.3010 Shri Ajsiy Kumar Barek, cou4sel SbriA.V.Shridbar, P.L. for ft<e Grievan.cc of the petitioners the petitibners were appouited as pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a p| coinpletion ofprobation, fhey were) Rs. 169-300. ilQ fhe present petition is that Assistant Teachers on a fixed iriod of two yeare aud after graated regular pay scale of fclr Contention of fhe counsel are entitled for regular pay scale mitial appoiutment aad their number of decisions passed b^j judgaient rendered by the M.P. Jabalpur in OA. No. 2745/89 Vs. State of M.P. & Others) sinularly placed teachers are the date offheir nutial appouitinen| entitled ttfc It is not disputed by both taken up by the State to fhe Apex { disinissed by fhe Apex Court Tnbunal to the effect that thc Teak entifled for regular pay scale fi-j: appouitment. eh)*li(n*Tll "RP^ff ^ 1^£t<f^f^t< ^; 3]p<pT aii^r IINKER DVW&KER. fbr fhe petitioneis. State. the petitioners is fhat fhey Iwith efiect fsxiva. the date of ca^e ia squarcly covered with this Court and also the S|ate Admitustrative Tribimal, (M^dliukaat Yadu 8* 56 Others wliereia it has been hcld that for regular pay scale finm parties fhat the niatter was pourt but fhe appeal was also u^holdang fhe decision of tfae chers/Assistant Tcachers are >ia the date of their itutial In view of tlie above submisjsion inade by the counsel for the parties, the petitipn is disposed ofin thc same terms i.e.f t&®>7in"1 ..,«^1 •®5^ ff rHC-22 \..J.ff 'tesf''^' '3ss*iaW an^T^r I<-ii.<* sfSsi ^*{ ':Erit^ TnT ^||4||<rl<), e>TJ1tiJl'iii. r««ni'Mi< SIT^T 'q?ra? _....U.£.^h.^i^?<TSSO?^ ^.....^...,......^..»...^....^ ^ tntR-fr th*<i<h l^sr' sn^r^aiw^ife statnd petitioners are graated llberty t( advised, ia fhe l^ht of the afore^ dated 27.12.2008 and in tum. directed to consider fheir case perspective. If the petitioiiers order passed by fhe State AdiaiB^! Yadu (supra) and subsequeaty Court in Special Leave Petition] dated 3.1.1995, fhe petitioners accordingly. make a representation, if so jaid judgment aad ttie ciroular the concenied respondent is ba its own merits and in its on fhe same footing as per (istrate Tribunal in. Madhiikaat confirmed by the Supreme (Cin^ No. 6892/93 by orier ^nay be entitled to same relief It is expected 6-om. the st^te authorities to pass siiitablf order after due scrutmy offtie fa.41 It is raade clear fhat this opiaion on merits of the case would toe at Uberty to decide accordance witti law. <*ltf[<y(<ill 'tTR^f Tf •f^^ <ifll^K irsiPOT SIT^I ts. Coiirt has not expressed aay and fhe aufhority conccraed fhe representation stricfly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^rn^ '^^TS te-i£S