IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S)No.....t;.<-.y.^.......2011 PETITIONER [E.'V' .^!:;^'"^l ^..-2^ ^ • RESPONDENTS (1) (2) Mannurain Dhruv S/o Shri GuhaRam Dhruv ' Aged about 53 Years, Head Master Primary School Rohinadih Block Pali District Korba (C.G) VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Asistant Commissioner Tribal Department Korba District Korba ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTIQN OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. te;!l r- SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITI2SKER DIWAKBR versus Maaiiu Raai Dhruv State of Chliatdsgarh Otliers Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, P.L. for the State. (02.12.2011( Grievance of fhe petition.er ia the present petition is that the petitioner was iuitially appointed as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and afier coiiipletion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froin the date of initial appouitnient aad his case is squarely covered wifh number of decisions passed by fhis Court aud also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrati.ve Tribunal, Jabalpm- in 0»d. No. 2745/89 p&eidhukant Ya&u Ss 56 € ltersVs. Stecte ofJS.P. Ss Others) ·whe.re in it has been held that sinularly placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale froiu the date of fheir iaitial appointmeat. It is not disputed by bofh the parties that the inatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Coiu-t but fhe appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect fhat fhe Tl'eachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled for regillar pay scale froin the date of tlieir initi.al appointnient. In view of the above subinission inade by fhe counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in. ttie sam.e temis i.e. fhe petitioner is granted liberty to inajse a representation, if so advised, ia the light oftlie aforesaid judgnient aad the circular dated 27. 12.2008 (Aruiexure P/5) aad ia tura, the concemed respondent is directed to VK, •>. : '^; ^':'&ite' i consMer his case on its own inerits and in its perspective. If fh-e petitioner stands on the sam.e footing as per order passed by fhe State Adininistrative Tnbiuial ia Madhukant Yadu (supra) a&d subsequentty confinned by th.e Suprenie Court in Special Leave Petition (Civilj N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner inay be entitled to same reU.cf accordiagly. It is expected froni tbe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutinv ofthe facts. It is raa.de clear fhat this court has not expressed asy opinion ou the luerits of fb.e case aad the aufhoritv conceraed would be at Uberty to decide the represeata.tion stricfly ia accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge