¥§a gamma; WWW“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.7mOf 2011 / PETITIONER : Rikhi Rain Dilliwar S/o Shri Thakur Singh Dilliwar, Aged about 55 years, Asstt. Teacher, Girls Pri. School No.2, Block Durg Dist— Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. 'llhe State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, //Ra.ipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.gS).No. 7593/2011 Shri S.K.Thomas, cmmsel for tha petitioner. Shn‘ Pgaveen Das, Dy. GA. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTXON OF INDIA ORDER (14.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100—150 and after completion 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 from the date. / of initial appointment. and his case is squarely covered with, number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. Na. 2745/89 (M’adhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofMJ’. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed. by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eiTect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in PETITIONER Rikhi Ram Diliwaz' versus RESPONDENTS State. of (Llhhattisgaz‘h &. Others ag the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tuln, the concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administxative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scmtiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictiy in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker DiWaker Judge f