l:M CX- \es-^) /^- (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S ) No. ///^> Of 2010 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: ^ ...,.v^ D ^\<^ ^s^ ^°' ,\^v .•:^'R\°''<< ^p^y; (\.^ ...••' y-y^ \^ ^^- Shivdas Vaishnav S/o Mukunddas Vaishnav, aged about 56 years, working on the post of Upper Division Teacher, posted at Middle School, Deepa Deogaon, District Raigarh , R/o Village and Post Bar, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, School Education Departinent, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The District Education Officer, Raigarh (CG). The Block Education Officer, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HG—78 *iTH^tT «»*11^ ~^^ ^I^Krl^, ^tll-f-t^Ko, fs«rfl<H^< . .....u.:£^o>.^...^..:Mcll^ "-^t 200 r 3TT^r 'q^F (^Fg^r) 3^i^T ^T'f^rNT ^T8TT ^TR^T ^Hi<^ ^RnW^tcTW^ SB.j_HONlB^E^R._tIU_STICE_PRITl ERD,!WAKER 27.10.2010 Shri Kaixial Kishroe Patel, cc Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. A.G. f< Gjievsjiice of the petitioner the petitioner was appoin.t.ed as T( Rs. 100-150 for a period of tevo probation, he was granted regular Conterition of the counsel f< eiititled for regular pay scale with appom.tsiient. aud. her case is squ< decisions passed by this Court ax^ by the M.P. State Administrative. T 274S/89'(Madhiikaat Yadu &. 5^ Others) wherein. it has been held are entifled for regular pay scale] appomtment. j|n It is not disputed by both fl(.e falcen up by the State to the Apex disinissed by the Apex Court. u{ Tribunal to the eifect that fhe Te4 entitled. for reguiar pay- scale f^ appomtmeut. cM^f<rt4iTl "RTR^ff "^f f^T^t 'rf^P^R ^^tRm^n^T luns-el for the petition.er. ^r the State. tlie present petitioB. is tha.t ^acher on a fixed pay scale of /'ears s.iid after coBJpletioii • of pay scale ofRs. 169-300. 3r tlie petitioner i.s th.a.t he i.s effect from. the date of io.i.tial ^rely covered -wi.th num.ber of d also the judgm.ent rend.ered ribunal, Jabalpur iii O.A. Ho<. Others Vs. State of M.P. &> that, similarly placed teachers froni the date of fheii' iiutial parties that the ,in.a.tter was. Court but the appealwas also ^holdio.g fhe decision of the chers/AssistaBt Teachers are om, the date of fh.eir ' iriitial ^ '^:^M il ••s^^% j, ././ ^.. "'i -^^?^ —78 SRTi^t^ f^iw '^CT^T^T'^RNT /' 's^ ^ww^ ^Ti1^li<o, fsi<ni<-!^ 3< WR<rtT (h^icb .U:.Q^1.S^.:..^ L^ "^'200 3^?T TR15F (yt^^I) (?«ii<tR^%a 311^1 submlission In view of the above the parties, the petition is dispo^c petitioiier is graated Hbert}7' to advised, io. the light of the aibre^aid dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/| respondent is directed to consid| aad iii its perspective, If .the footm.g as per order passed by ni Madhukaiit Yadu (supra) Mid Supreiae Court in Special Leave order dated 3,1.1995^ the petiti^ne: reLief accordingly. inade by the coiinsel for fcd, ofia the'sarae t.erms ie. the inake a representetion, if so judgm.ent aisd the cii'cuk;u: p) aod m. tum., the concenied 'r their ca.se on its own meri.ts betitioner stand on the sem.e State Admio.istrate Tnbunsl |subsequeiitly conllrmed by the IPetition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by i^ner me^y be eixtitled to saixie flie It is expected from fhe order aiter due scrutmy of ttie fa< It is raade clear tliat this opinion on merits of tiie case would be at liberty. to decKle accordance with law. ^i^i^i41^ ^<R^f ^f 'fe^ <Ri^i< ^3itftppr^i^T sNte |te authorities to pp^ss suitable tts. Court has not expressed aiiy |and th.e authori.ty conces'n.ed |th,e representation stri.cfly in Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge