é? $m§§¥e Emab Ci) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. }ST$ Of 2011 / PETITIONER: Bhaiya Ram Mali S/o Shri Baharoo Ram Mali, Aged about 57 years, Head Master, Govt. Pri. School Sonaesarar, Block Dhamdha, Dist— Durg (C.G.) VERSUS / w, RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaly, School s ”l Education Department, ’. l ' - Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (a 2. The‘Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, /Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District ~ Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DI‘VAKER w.P.¢S).No. 7599/201 1 Shn’ S.K.’I‘homas, couns¢} for the: vetitioner. Shri Piavaen Das, DV G.A. for the State: WRIT PE’HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.12.201 1) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay scale of Rs’ 100- 150 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 eEec't from the date [of initial appointment aud his case is squarely coveied with. number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Ad ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu 6r. 56 Others Vs. State ofMP. & 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 from 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 iepresentation, if so advised, in PETITION’ER Bhaiya Ram Mali Versus RESPONDENTS State of (:ihhaitisgarh 8r. Oth€rs @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5. 1.2011 (Anncxure P/ 1) and in tum, the concerned respondent is dimcted 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 Specl Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by order dated. 0301.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is e>§pected from the State authorities to ps suimble cir 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 accornce wit law. da h Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge ia as de