^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.p.rs^No. "7 3^' /2011 PETTTIONER ,^^:. \..^^-"" ...^ ^..•'••' ..•• .^\ 3.<y,..-<^ / . ^'"J^r ^^ ^y.^' '<y RESPONDENTS : Ganesh Prasad Pandey, aged about 59 years, S/o Shri Bhukhan Lal Pandey, Head Master, Government Primary School Keshala ( Bilha ) , Bilha bistt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.-^ State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education bepartment b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2^ The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.6.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Bilha, bistrict- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint birector, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.G.) ^ 3. ^ WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTECLE 226^0FJ'HE CONSTITUION OF INDIA N '-9 ^- HIGH COURT OP CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSTECB PRITINKER DIWAKBR W.P.tSl.lJQ^7305^2011 PETITIONER RBSPONDENTs versus Ganesh Prasad Paudey State of Chhattisgarh & Ofliers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. ShriYashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER^ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (05.12.2011) Grievan.ee of the petitioner in the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100 aad aft.er coBipletion of probation, he was granted regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitied for regular pay scale with effect from the date of iiiitial appointinent aad his case is squarely covered with nuniber ofdecisions passed by this Court and also fhe judgment rendered by tlie M.P. State Admiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. JVo. 2745/89 (SSudhukant Ycssiu Ss 56 Others Vs. State ^fM.P. Ss Others) where m it has been held that smiilarly placed teachers are entiUed for regular pay scale frora ihe date of ttieir initial appoiatment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the aiatter was taken up by tlie State to tlie Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court upholdiag fhe decisiou of the Tribunal to tlie effect ttiat fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers ai*e entitied for regular pay scale froni the date of tlieir inLitial appouitment, In view of the above subinission made by the coiinsel for the parties, the petitiou is disposed of ia flie same terms ie, fhe petitioner is graiited Uberty to niaJse a representatiou, if so advised, ia ^— the light of the aforesaid judgnient and fhe circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexiire P/ 2) and in. tuni, fhe conceraed respondent is directed to consider tlieir case on its own raeiits and hi its perspective, If tlie petitioner stauds on fhe same footing as per order passed by the State Adniniistrative Tribunal ia Madhukaiit Yadu (supra) aad subsequentiy confirmed by fhe Supreine Coiu't in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, ti-ie petitioner niay be entiUed to same reUef accordiugly. It is expected froni fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiny offhe facts. It is iiaade clear that this court has not expressed any opiniou on fhe m.erits of the case and fhe autliority concei-ned woiild be at Kberty to decide fhe representation stdctly io. a.ccordaiice witli law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge