i^'. CF0000213129 Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR (C.&.) W.P. (S) N0 /201I PE'IIflONER Badri Prasad Kaushik, Aged about 59 years, S/o Nandram Kaushik, Retired Head Master, 6overnment Middle School, Takhatpur Block Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^ ^"'' js^ ^•w 2. ^.\- >:»'-'^••' 1-^' State of Chhattisgarh .-•^I'V . ^—^ThroughSecretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) The Director Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Educdtion Officer Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (.C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Bilaspur, (C.6.) 3. 4. 5. WRIT PETETION UNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUION OF INDIA \^^~ •^':£fs:c^;^ /ys£^ "^ c,Sg?3?T?'-\ ''^ss^^'"::"^ •ii^SS.s''^-.' '' •Jl*=>i- Versus Badri prasad Koushik Sta.te of Chhattise.ar3: Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pj'asi, P.L. tbr the State. Grievance of the petitiouer iu fhe present petition is that fbe petitioner was appointed as Assstant Teacher/Traiaee on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after couipletion of probation, he was granted regul.ar pay scate ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fhat he is entitied for regular pay seale wifh efiect froia the istate / of initial appouitment and his case is squarely ccvered wifh munber of decisioas passed by fb.is Court aad also t1ie judgment rendered by fbe M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O^A. No. 2745/89 fSIa&hu.kant Yadu & S6 Others Vs. State a/IS.P. & Othersfwhere in it has been held. that stmttarly placed teachers are entifted for regular pay scale froiB. fhe date of tiieir initial appoiatment. [t is not disputed by bofh fhe parties that the niatter was taken up by fhe State to the Apex Court but tbe appeal was also disinissed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision of flie Tribunal to the effect th.at fh.e Teachers/Assistan.t Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from. the date of their Hiitial appou'ititient. In view of tlie above subinission luade bv fhe counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed of ia the same terras i.e. tlie petitioner is graated liberty to niake a representatioa, tf so advised, ia 1 '<iS£—^;i •^,. -•// J^ the light of th.e aforesaid judgiaent aiid the cu-CTilar dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 2) aad in tum, the concemed respondent is dlTected to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If tlie petitioner stauds on the same footing as per order passed by the State Adniuustrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner niav be entitted to same relief accordiuglv. It is expected froin fhe State authorities to pass siiitable order after due scrutmy ofttte facts. it is made clear tliat fhis court has not expressed any opiiiion ou tlie uierits of the case and the auttiority concemed would be at liberty tb decide tb.e representation strictly in accordance witli law. Sd/- PritiisSier Diwaker, - .Judge .,