Single Be 1 C -^-t°°^" IN THE HON'BLE HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR IC.6.} N0. S^^S /2011 PETTTEONER ^^ .^-•:y^^ ^y^y ^ ^ 2. V ^ years, S/o Prasad Government Mandloi, Aged about 58 Late Shri Sukhdeo Head Master, Primary School, Kota, District- State of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) The Director 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, , Distnct- Bitaspur (C.G.) Director, Treasury, Account WRrr PETETEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE •ll.L'"" - •^."^ 1"">'5E-W.!: '^^^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITJNKBR DFWA.KBR W.P.(S)JIO. 5765/2011 PB-nTIOMBR Dhanaaam Mandtoi versus RESPONDENTS State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitfoner. Shri Yashwaat Smgh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PBTITION imDBR AR-HCLB 226 OF 'HIB COKSTITUTION OPIMDIA ORDBR (27.09.2011) Gnevance of the petitioner in fhe present pctition is that the petitioaer was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a pcriod of two yeare and after coiapletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scate ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for fbe petitioner is that he is entifled for regular pay scale wifh efifect fiom the date of uutial appointmeut aad his case is squarely covered with number of decisions pasaed by fhis Court and also fhe judgment reudered by the M.P. State Admioistrative Tribiuial, Jabalpiu- ia 0*A. No. 274S/89 pastShvkdnt yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofSS.P. & Others) where in it has been held fhat sumlarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from the date offheir initial appointment. It is not disputed toy both fhe parties that thc niatter was taken up by fbe State to fhe Apex Court but tfac appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholding fhe decision ofthe Tribunal to fhc effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fioia fhe date offheir iaitial appoiatment In view of the above submission niade bv fhe couasel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the sanie terms i.e. the petitioner is granted Uberty to make a representation, if so advised, in ^•^t,^^!w.^ ^cy the l^ht of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Aaaexure P/2) and in tum, the conccraed respondent is directed to coasider fheir case on its cwxi inerits aud in its perspective. If the petitioner stauds on the saine footing as per order passed by fhe State AdmirustTative Tribunal iu Madhukaat Yadu {supra) and subsequently coiifirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Cwil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the pctitioaer may be entitled to same reUefaccordingty. It is expected fboin the State authorities to pass suitablc order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is made clear fhat ttus court has not expressed any opinion on the uierits of fhe case aad the authority concemed wouM be at liberty to decide the representation strictly ia accordaace with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge