PETITIONER Gendram Nirmalkar ‘ S/o g$§§ Hg-wma %‘, .w gm ‘1 *‘va‘sm: m: R— IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT V ‘ BILASPUR w.1=. (S) No. 7W /2d11 /. 1. rigg‘ICULARs OF THEPETW'Mmm-W#E ‘ I V M‘ a .g ed about 52 Years V occupation Head Master Govt. Middle School Jhabar, Block—Katghora Distt. Korba (C.G.) ‘ , ‘ VERSUS , " ’ V M1 RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh é Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) t“ : 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, 'Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) " 3/ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4f” Joint Director Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District— Bilaspur i (C.G.) j“ WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘INDIA 6%; HIGH C03RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER D1WAKER w.P.gs).N0. 71461291 1 Petitkmer G€n<iram Nirmajkar V€I‘SuS Responéems State of Chhgtfjsgarh 85 Othsrs Shri Ajay Barik, counsasl for ths: petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the Statti. omER (01.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs.150 and after copletion 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 eifect from the date of initial appointment iand his case is squarely covered. with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Administrative Tribfmal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (.‘Madfmkant Yadu 8r. 56 Others Vs. State afMP. & 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 Apei Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect. 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 the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27. 12.2008 6r. 3.1.2011 {Annexures P12 85 Pl3l} and in turn, the concerned @ mspondent is directed to considsr his case: on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently coniiimed 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 scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the meritsmf the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Eiwakar Judge