5 ..u}' KNGIE B€NGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^) ^AZ- OF 2010. PETITIONER "--s'^ v^^y--""" ®(U(.I^A^* ^ ' /^ RESPONDENTS Satendra Kumar Kawade, S/o. late Shri Sataoo Ram Kawade, aged about 58 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Dudheda, Block-Bhopal- Patnam, District Beejapur (C.G.) VE RS U S :1.^ State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2.^ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Beejapur, District Beejapur (C. G.) 3/ Block Education Officer, Bhopal-Patnani, District Beejapur (C.G.) ^' 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Beejapur, District Beejapur (C. G.) s.^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -HC—78 WRCtT^rW^ '3'Sf ^l^lcj^, ^•<ll-M<!<o, [®|<y||-M^< ..w:..e....c^...^...^ ^ 200 3TI^T T^F ( yifl<s|<^T) 3?I^T ^FT R-lJch ^W ^TT^T'gTRfcF l^ ^<TTW 1Rf^T 3H^I SB^.HCWBLB_NR<_tJUSTICBPmT!N 26.10.2010 Shri Soin.kant Verrna, couxis- Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. G.A. Grievance of fhe petitioner i in fhe year 1975 5 he was appoiat pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a p completion of probation, he was 169-300. i|j the present petition is tliat |kd as Dy. Teacber on a fixed ^riod of two years and after gr^ixted regul.ar pay scale of Rs. Coutention of the counsel fc entitled for regular pay scale wifh appoiatinent aiid her case is squ^ decisions passed by fhis Court aii< by fhe M.P. State Admiaistrative T 2745/89 pWadhukant Yadu 8s 56 Otfaers) wherem it has been held ai*e entitled fbr regular pay scale appoiatinent, It is not disputed by both tli taken up by fh.e State to the Apex dismissed by fhe Apex Court iij Tribunal to the effect that fhe entiUed for regular pay scale fr apposiitment. ctii<<(<n€ftt^W^ff ^f 1^tzt <f^i^i< ^3tRR33?^T SBRmWAJKER ?1 for fhe petit.io.ner. for the State. r the petitioner is that she is etYect from fhe da.te of iBitial irely covered with iiumber of 1 also the judgnient rendered ribunal, Jabalpur in 0<A. No< Others Vs. State of M.P. 85 ;hat siniilarly placed teachers fro'm. the date of their iiiitial |e parties that fhe niatter was pourt but tlie appeal was aJBO |)holdiiig the decision of fhe Tea|Dhers/Assistaat Teachers are bm the date of their imtial .'•^ v .O^HC—78 '3'sf '^TFTT^R, yal^^Ko, T®ldHl|,< , __.U:..?,..05l.^.:.^iAi-_[A? 'NlMMI ^^^•^••^—^•-^—^^•^•^ 200 ^TI^T TRW (yi^^) 37I^T'^T ^Jch WIT 37T^?T 9h^i<sh ^c<TTW^^f3^?T 1 In view of fhe above subnijission laade by fhe counsel for fhe parties, the petition is dispo^ -^ '..•••: ;. :':;."":.. •..:'. '- .:^ M; petitioner is gmnted liberty to| advised, in the light offhe afore| dated 27.12.2008 (AuB-exiire P/|6) and in tiim, the conceraed respondent is directed to consid| aiid ia its perspective. If fhe CM<<l<n4Si WR^if ^f 'fe^st <F»i^i< ^^tRm^i^T |ed ofin. th.e sam.e tenas i.e. the XRake a representatiou^ tf so said judgnient aad fhe circular er their case on its own merits petitfoner stand on the saiae footing as per order passed by 1|he State Admiaistrate Tribuna! ia Madhukatit Yadu (supra) aad] Supreine Court in Special Leave] order dated 3.1,1995, fhe petit^oner may be entitled to same relief accordiagly. It is expected from. the st^te aufh.orities to pass suitable order after due scrutmy of the fa|?ts. It is inade clear that thid opinion on merits of the case] would be at liberty to decidej accordance wifh law. subsequently confirmed by fhe Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by Court has not expressed aay aod the authority. concenied the representation stdctly m Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge