^ 1 •ICI IN THEHON'BLE HI^H COURT OF CHHATTCS^AftH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) W.P.(S)NO. ^1b'2— /2011 PETETCONER ^ x^^h ^^.; ^"w-^...--" ^0': ^'L^ ,..-B.-<'^' ..^^>y" yy" ^..-•" ^ Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Jwala Prasad Tiwari, Head Master, Government MiddJe School ^hutku Block Takhatpur, District-BiIaspur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l." State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Deportment D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Pub!iclnstructions Raipur (C.G.) 3. ^ bistrict Education Officer, Biiaspur, District-BiJQSpur (C.G.) 4.'" Block Education Officer ^.^^" ./ Takhatpur, DEstrict- Biiaspur (C.G.) 5. Joint Director. Treasury, Account Pension, Biiaspur (C.&.) £ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUION,OF_INDIA •r ^ HIGH COXJRT Or CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON^BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKSR DIWAKER PETITIOKBR RBSPONDBNTS W.P.tSl.NO,_6S02/2011 Ashok Kumar Tiwari versus State ofC.G. 8& Others Shri K,S.Pawar, counsel for the petltioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy, G.A. for the State. WRJTPETITION UNDBRARTICLB 226 OFTHB CONSTITUTIOK OP INDIA ORDER (04.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner m fhe present petition is tliat the petitioner was appointed m tlie year 1976 as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs, 100 for a period of one year and fhereafter in fhe year 1977 on a fixed pay scate of Rs. 150 for a period ofone year, After conipletion of probation, in. the year 1978, he was granted regiilar pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of the cozinsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect frora fhe date of iaitiai appoiatment and his case is squarely covered wifh nuniber of decisions passed by fhis Court aiid also flie judgiaent rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribimal, Jabalpur m O.A» Na. 2745/89 (BSadhukant Ya&u Ss S6 Others Vs^ State ofMiP, Ss Offeers^ where m it havS been held ttiat similarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from flie date of fheir mitial appomtaient. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties that fhe niatter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dism.issed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag the decision of the Trlbunal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale J&*o33i the date of their iaitial appoiatment. //^: ..A -1^^^ I '^. / s "^^ ;^ In view of tlie above submission made by the counsel for fhe parties, the petition is disposed of in fhe sam.e terais ie. fhe petitioner is graated Mberty to niake a representation, if so advised, ia fhe Ught of the aforesaid judgnient aad the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexiire P/ 2 ) and m tura, th.e concenied respondent is directed to coiisider his case on its own nierits and ixi its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on fhe saaie footiag as per order passed by fhe State Admmistrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aiid subsequenUy confinned by the Suprenie Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitied to saiae relief accordragly. It is expected from the State autliorities to pass siiitable order after due scrutiay of the facts, It is made clear fhat this court has not expressed aay opmion on fhe merits of the case aad the aufhority concemed would be at tlberty to decide fhe representation strictly ia accordaiice wifh law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge