1. Singl® .P. (S) N0. _ ^^^ /2011 ^ Lecturer, Sovernment Higher School >ur, District- .'h<' ^w^ ....-•^<^ ^•'^''...-•"^ ^y. y ^' Public Instructions Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) ^v-/-' •III.. aiB., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIONER RESPONDEKTS W.P.(Sj.NO. 8719/2011 Veer Siagh Prasad versus State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (26.09.2011J Grievaiicc of the petitioner ia the present petition is that tbe petitioner was appointed as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a period of two years aad after conipletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention ofthe coTuisel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froia the date of initial appoiatmcnt and his case is squarely covered with niimber of decisions passed by fbis Court and also the judgment rendered by fhe M.P. State Administaative Tribunal, Jabalpiu- iu 0»A. No. 2745/89 (ISetdhukant Vcwhi Ss 56 Others Vs. State ofSS.P. Ss Othersfwbeie m it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers are entitied for regu]ar pay scale froiii fhe date of their initial appointnient It is npt disputed by bofh fhc parties that fhe matter was taken up by the ^tate to the Apex Court but fhe appeal was also disniissed by the Apex Court uplioldiug fhe decision offhe Tribunal to the efFect fbat the Te^cliers/Assistaut Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froni the date of fheir uutial appoiatnient. In view of the above subiaission inade by fhe counsel for the pardes, the petitlon is disposed of in. the same terms i.e. fhe petltionerjs graated liberty to inake a representatioa, if so advised, ia ^'is^i l5.,-\ "" / ® ~i5a::5*;E;" fhe light of ffae aforesaid judgruent and fhe cireular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2) aad ia tunn, fhe concemed respondent is directed to coasider their case on its own merits and ia its perspective. If fbe petitiouer stands on the same footing as per-oxder passed by the State Administaative Tnbunal iu Madhidcaat Yadu (supra) arid subsequendy coiifinaed by fhe Supreiue Coiut in Special Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by oider dated 03.01.95, the petitloiier inay be entitled to same reliefaccoxdiagty. It is expected fiom tfae State aufhoritics to pass suitable order after due scrutmy ofthe facts. It is made clear fhat this court has not e^ressed any opinion on the inerits of the case and fhe authority concemed wouM be at Uberty to decide tfae representation. stricfly in accoidaace wiffa law. Sd/- pritinkerDwakar Judge