r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. '?^?0f2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS ^' ^ y" ^^ ^ ..</v ..•"'^ -A ^ Lochan Rani Sahu S/o Shri Itwari Ram Sahu, Aged about 60 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt.Middle School, Nipani, Block- Balod, Dist. -Durg. (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 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 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF- CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR <M^~ SB : HON?BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER W.P.ISI.NO. 7737/2011 PETITSONBR REBPONDBNTs Versus Lochan Ram. Saliu State of Chliattisgarb. & Ofhers Shri S.K/Thomas, couBsel for tlie petitioner. Shri Chanclresh Shrivastava, P.L, for tfae State. WmT_PETIT!p_N_UNDER_ARTICLE_226 OF THE COMSTITXJTIO.N OFINDSA O'RDBR (16.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner iii th.e present petitiou is that the petitioner was appouited as Assistsiit Teacher (Traio.ee) 011 a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100-150 aad after conipletion of probation, he was graiited regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Conteution ofthe counsel for tlie petitioner is tiiat he is entitied for regular pay scaJe with effect from tJie date /ofinitial appoinfcment aiid his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by tiiis Coiul and also tlie judgment rendered by the M,P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274S/89 pSadhuko.n.t Yesdu Ss 56 Others ¥s»Stafe ^fM.P»& Ofhers^ where iii it has been held fbat similariy placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their mitial appointment. It is not disputed by both. the parties that flie niatter was taken up by the State to the Apex Cozirt but the appeal was also dismissed by ttie Apex Court upholding the decision of fhe Tribuiial to the effect tha.t the Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entifled for regular pay scale froxn tlie date of tlieir initial appoiatiaeiit. In view of the above subiaission m.ade by the coiinsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of m the saoie terms i.e. tlie petitioner is graated llberty to malce a representation, if so advised, irx ..^^r ^'^. ^ 1 b "—J"1'""^1 if '^ ^ i? ^ %,.,,.^ ^ ^.,. ^e:r" ^ ^ the light of tlie aforesaid judgm-ent and tiie circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concemed respondent is dii-ected to consider their case on its own raerits and ia its perspective. If flie petitioner staods on the same footiag as per order passed by tlse State Admmisfcrative Tribunal m Madhukant Yadii (siipra) and subsequently confiiTaed by the Suprenie Court iii Special Leave Petition (Civa) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner Biay be entitted to same relief accorduigly. It is expected from the Stete aufhorities to pass suitable order after due scnitiuy offh-e facts. It is sxiade clear fhat tliis court has not expressed an.y opinion on the raerits of ttie case and the aiifhority coDceiTied would be at UberUr to decide flie representation stdcfly m accordaiice wifli iaw. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge