IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU WRIT PETITION (S) No. é%??0f2011 Keshav Ram Mahendra S/o Shri Kanhaiy Mahendra, ’ aged about 59 years, Head master, Govt. Middle School, Khaira, Block— Daundi Lohara, Dist- Durg. (C.G.) RESPONDENTS through the Secretary, School Education Department, PETITIONER VERSUS : (The State of Chhattisgath, ‘Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, / Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, 3.4m District Education omcer, District — Durg, (C.G.) Raipur (co) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E 226 OF THE m HIGH CGURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT EILASPUR M SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.(S!.N0. 6877/20}. 1 Keshav Ram Mahendra PETITIONER VCI‘SIIS REspcmnEmS s'mte of Chhattisgarh & Gtha‘s Shri S.K.Thomas, counse} for the peiifioner. Shn' Shashazik Thakur, PnL. for 11m State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CaNSTlTVl‘EON OF INDIA ORDER {21.11.2011} ’ Grievance of the petitioncr in the plesent petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a. period of two years and after completion of probarion, 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 appoinunent 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 0A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs’ State ofMJ’. as 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 effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale nom the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above‘submission made by the counsel for the I“ parties, theipetin'on 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 th$ aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.08 and in turn, 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 Administrative 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 scrutiny of the facts; l 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 strictly in accordance with law. ,Jn Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge