C^i !ify^§ ^^I^i ? ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR_(C.G.) W.P. rsYNo. 7^1^ /20io PETETCONER ...;< ^' RESPONbENTS : ^ 1. <^^,?^ / <!. l' /.^i,\^' t ^ l ^f^- ^^ \ ^^[^.TT.] / ^' ^?9^ ^' ^ Puranik Ram Sahu, Aged about.52 years, S/o Late Milau Ram Sahu, Upper bivision Teacher, Government Middle School, Khairjhitti, bistrict- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education bepartment b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) birector, Public Instructions Raipur (C.G.) , District Education Officer Rajnandgain (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.e.) WRIT PETCTCON UNbER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA F^: T :-HC-22 \ '."-^ ^STI^T^T f^Twan^i 5h^i^ ^Ti^^ "3"^ ^ll^lld^, ^Tl1^4ico. i®(<rt(<ri^< 3TI^?T ^^ ..^:..e:..u>..)..^.'^^ V) WR^TF ^HIGb ^^f' 3?7I^T '^TT^R ^rf^T S.B.: HON*BLB JUSTICE MR. Piy|TINKBR DIWAKBR 15-12-2010 Shri K.S,Pawar, counsel for ShriVaibIiav Goverd'h.aii, P.1 Grievance of fhe petitioner tiie petitioner was appointed as D^ of Rs. 100 for a period of two y probatiou, he was graoted regiilar pie petitioner. .. for the State. tn. the present petjlion is th.at ^ Teacher on a fixed pay scale 'ai's and after coxsipletion of IpayscaleofRs. 169-300. aiid Contention of llie counsel f(( eiititled for regular pay scal.e witlj( appointaient ax:xd his case is decisions passed by fMs Court bv the M,P. State Admiaistrative 2745/89 IMadhtiteant Yadu & S^ Othersj whereisa it has beezi held | are entitled for regulax' pay scale| apponitBient. It is not disputed by bofh t^ taken up by the State to the Apex{ disinissed by the Apex Court. •uj] Tribuual to fhe effect tb.at the Te^ entitled for regular pay scale •Sf appointuient. the parties, the petition is dispos^ "petitioncr io graiited—Kb^^—te. ctiN(<n41"i 'RTO^f ^ 'fe1^ <p5i^i< ^'3:rf^FT 3TT^T >r the peti.ti.on.er is tiriat he is eifect from. the da.te of iaiti.al squ^rely covered with nuraber of a4d ol^o the judgment rendered |ribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A, Ho, Otlieirs Vs. State of M.P. & (that similarly placed teactiers troni tlie date of their ini.tial ic parties.th.at the matter was Court but the appeal was al.so pholding. the decision of fhe ichers/Assistant Teachers are 'om the date of their mitial In view of tlie above subniijssion m.s.de by the counsel for d ofigi the same term.s i.e, the [mak-e~--a—^epr^senta±kxn^..if.^so...:.^. F'^^ ^fT^ XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f^N'w^i 5t>^i<^ ^ff^C? 1- a^o ^^ ^Mld^, ^Tt1wj(o, i®t<rti^li< S^^ XRT^; 1RWFtr 9hHlcb"""""""**'*<***'*******'^F^ 200 i^^sr' -STT^T'^rra^:-^f^T advised, m the Mght of fhe aforc; dated 13.1.09 (Annexiire P/2) 1'espoiident is directed to consid( aad in. its perspective. If fhe p footing as per order passed by in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad Supreiiie Court iri Special Leave order dated 3.1.1995/the petiti reMef accordin-gly, It is expected fro32i the sta order after due scratmy of the fac It is made clear fhat fhisl opie.ion. on. m.ents of the case would be at libert}^ to decide accordance with law. sjaid judgnieB.t aad tlie circular [axid m tara, tlie concemed ir fheir case on its own merits ^titioner s'taads on the same ftte State Admraistrate Tribunal |$ubsequently confHTaed by the |setition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by t>ner raay be entitled to saine chl<4f<yl41r1 'HPR^Tt* ^ f^ft ^^K ^7 N^FT 3TRf?T [te authorities to pass suitable Its. Court has not expressed aoy ;aad the aulliority concero.ed :the represeB.ta.tion strictly ia Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge |-:rr^ -§-f7^ji