$§€EE £E£§ HL N€ ® I THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.ég?%f2011 /, PETITIONER : Shobhu Ram Thakur Karwar Singh Thakur, A about 59 years, Head Govt. Middle School Pi —Daundi Lohara Dist- S/ o Shri ged Matert ngal, Block Durg C.G) RESPONDENTS VERSUS / : l. The State of Chhattisgath, throug the Secretary, School Education Departent, Mantralay at D.K.S. B Raipur (C.G.) hawan, 2. The Commissioner, Public / Instructions, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh, 3 3. The District Education Officer, District — Dur , (C.G.) i ‘ i wRlr PETITION \_ CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 226 OE THE ‘ ‘ i N T I s ( h m / “V ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JEISTICE PRITENKER DIWAKER wagsmo. 6875;291 1 PETITIONER Shebhu Ram Thakur VEI‘S llS RESPGNDENTS Sfate: of Chhattisgarh 8r. Others Shn‘ SK‘Thomas cohhsel far the petitioner. Shri Shashax§k Thakur P.L for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.11.011) Grievan of the petitioner n the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as ASsistant Teacher a fixed pay scale of Rs‘ 100-150 for a period f two years and after completion 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 effect from t date of initiai appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M‘P. State dministrative Tribunai, Jabaur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State afM.P. & Others) where in it has been held at similarly pced 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 o the Apex Court. but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex ourt upholding te decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers] Assisnt Teachers are entitled for regular pay s r nt 1 Inpyiew of the above submission made by the counsel for the partiesr the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitionéris granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in cale hpm the date of thei initial appoiment. 2 ce i on o he A lp th la t @ h ta the light of the aforesaid judgmentrand the circular dated 27.12.08 and in tum, the concerned, respondent is directed to consider their case on its own men'ts and in its perspective. If the petitioner stagds 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. 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 accomancc with law. Sdl- E Pritinker Biwaitar Judge