@ $mgm @mh ® lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NEL’Oé 0f 2011 / PETITION : Himmat Lal Yedav S/ o Shri Lochan Lal Yadav, Aged about NO Q“ 57years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt.Midd1e School, Khapri, Block-I Balod, Dist. —Durg. (C.G.) VERSUS / 2 1. The State of Chhattisgath, -through the Secretaly, School Education Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. The District Education Officer, District — Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HEGH COEIRT GF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUST£CE PRI’l‘INKER DIWAKER w.p.gs;.1m. 7405;2011 PETITEQNER Himmat L$ Yafiav V€IS1lS RESPOEmENTs ‘ State of Chhattisgarh 8r. Others Shr‘i S.K.T‘homas; counsel far the petih'oner. Shri Yashwamt Smgh Thakm‘, Dy. AG. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTXCLE 1225 0? THE COKSTITUT§$N OF INDIA ORDER (03.12201 1) Grievance, of the petitioner in the pmsent petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a iixed yay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitleti for regular pay scale with eiieot from the date of initiai appointment and his case is squarely covered with. number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. Na. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. It. is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of theuabove submission made by the counsel for the partiesf, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in x , tha light of the aforesaid judgmexlt and. the circular éated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 1) and in tum, the concarned respondent is directedr to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administxative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and, subsequently confxrmed. by the Supreme Court in $pecial Leave Petition (Civii) NO. 6892]93 by order dated 0301.95, the petitioner may be entitied to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitabie order after due scruu'ny of the facts.‘ It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accord ance with law. Sd/— ritinker Biwakar Judge WWW »- P