SinQIe Banch /‘ CD $ W ’% IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s.} No. $0 9 6 /201 1 PETITIONER: Sukdev Mahana S/o Shri Balram / Mahana, Aged about 48 years, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ,, 3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. Working as Head Master R/o Village Pusour, Via Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) i VERSUS RESPONDENTS /' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) /2. District Education Officer, iiIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BXLASPUR SB z HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P. S .NO. 5096 %O;il PETITIONER Sukdav Mahema VETSHS z mw» RESPONDENTE’ Stai= cf QG. $5 Others Shri K. PSahu, counsel far ma. patitiumer. Shxé Pravcen Das, Dy. G. A. {03‘ the gmtr RXT PETITXON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE (30NSTKTUTION W OF INDIA ORDER (02.09.20 1 1) Grievanca of thg petitionar in fhté pm3ent {)etition is that tha petitioner was appointcd as Assistant Thacher on a lixexi pay Scak of Rs. 150 for a pen'od of two years axid aftcr completion cf probation, he was grained Regular pav male of Rs, 169—3Q0. Crm‘xsntion of the counsei for the pctin‘onor is that ho i$ entitbsd for ragular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment anrl his case is squarely covered with number of occisions oasoed by 1his (301m. and aiso tho juégment rendcrod by tho MP. Stam Admioistrative 'I‘ribxmal, Jabaipm‘ in O.A. No. 2745/89 {Maxihukant Yadu 6; 56 Others Vs. State afMJ’. & Othars) where in it has boon held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial aypointment. it is not disputerl by bot the parties that the matter was taken 111’) 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. effect that the TeachersiAssimant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made by the oouusel for the paiiies, 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 axid tbs circular dated 5.1.201 1 (Annexure P/ 2) and in tum, the concerned mspondent is dimmed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspectivs. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by fhe State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukam Yadu (supra) mid subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in $peciai Leave Petition (Cit/1'1) NO. 6892/93 by coder dated 03.01.95; the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordin gly. MM; It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due smitmy of the facts. 1t is made dear 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 strictly in accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge