VN $ingha Bench F § ‘(C’o g@ ® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No .....ééO..% ...... 2011 r ..... Nakched Singh Bariha S/o Shri Jamadar Singh Bariha, Aged 63 Years, Rtd Head master Middle School Bhaskarapali District Mahasamund (C.G) VERSUS /, (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) /' (2) District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund ( C.G.) /(3) Joint Director Treasury and Pension Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/ DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER wagsmo. 6607/201 1 pE'rrrmNER Nakched smgh Ban'ha VCISuS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Oth€rs Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitiormr. Shri Praveal Das, Dy. G.A. for ths State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.11.2011) Grievance of tha peu’tioner in the pmsent petition is that the: petitioncr was appointed in the year 1977 as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, in the year 1979, 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 eEect from the date of unnal appoinnnent and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and 'also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State i Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. N0. 2745/89 (M'adhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. 8a 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 eh‘ect 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 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 /~ g,\ The light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/S ) and 1'11 tum, the concerned respondent is dimcted to consider 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 Administran've Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated 03101.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authoriu'es to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authon'ty concerned Would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge