® ^l^'?ff*fifi.? ^^SSsO^ 'sas-u IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. ^€&c) /2011 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS '7 Ramchalitar Karsayal, S/o Lalua Ram, aged about 57 years, Lecturer, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Dharsedi, Block Udgi, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS l.^'^State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. /• Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, „/ Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribat Wetfare Department, Ambikapur, Distt, Surgua (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^SSS--^.y :y r?'3S?'SP. SLSI^ -TI"?iBS?3u'?lf"»i3t g&0'?jiTt'S'%ff'ZiF"ap%> T%1"S33F a S?"i • ra.^ysv o^is^ ^irs.. tjusosi^a^ ys^.is.i'sx^s^s^. s^s.vy^kS^.s PSTITIONgH Versus Ra-mchalitar Karsaval State of Chhattisgarh Ofhers Shri Rahul Mishra, couusel for fh(? petitioner. Shri Bhaskar P}rasi, P.L. for the State. Orievance of the petitioner ui the present petition is fhat the petitioner was appoiuted as Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 aitd after completion of probation, he was grauted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of tlie counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale witti effect froiu the date of iniual appouittnent aild his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by fhis Court aad also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur iu O.A. No. 2745/89 ^aad.hukant YaiS.v. & 56 Whers Vs. State ofSS.P. Ss Others) where in it has been held fhat siuiilarly placed teachers are entifted for regular pay scale from. the date of th.eir initial appouitaient. It is not disputed by bot.h fhe parties t-hat the luatter was talsen up by the State to the Apex Court but fiie appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiug fhe decision of the Tribunal to the erfect ffaat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froin. the date of fheir initial appoiQtment. In view of the above subuiission niade by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of ia fhe sarae temis i.e. tl-ie petitioner is granted liberty to ina3se a representation, if so advised, in @ fhe l^h.t of fhe aforesaid judgiaent and the circular dated 27.12.08 (Aanexure P/2) and in tura, fhe concemed respondent is directed to consider fheir ca.se on its own nierits and iu its perspective. If the petitioner staads on the sauie footing as per order passed by tbe State Administrative Tribun.al in Madhukant Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by fhe Supreine C^»urt ui Special Leave Petition (Civa) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner inav be entiUed to satae relief accordiaglv. It is expected froia fhe State aufhorities to pass siiitable order after due scnitiny of ftie facts. It is ma.de clear fhat fhis court has not expressed aay opmion. on ftie m.erits of fh.e case an.d tlie auttiority concemed would be at liberfar to decide fhe represeiltation strictly ia accordance witb. law. -vs(i Pritiiiker Diwakei