IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) NOW/DilOf 2011 /Ra1nesh Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Soni, Aged about 54 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Umerpoti, Block- Durg, Dist. —Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER: / VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. 'L‘he State of Chhattisgarh, / through the Secretaxy, School ~~ Education Department, o‘ , Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, 'Raipur (C.G.) 2.?he 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 . HIGH C§URT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITENKER DIWAKER w.9.gs3.1~m. 7407;201 1 PETETIONER Ramash Kumar S0111 VCISU$ RE$PGNDENT$ , ' Statti ofChhat‘risgarh & Others Shn' g K Thoma§ courisel for tha petitioner Shri Yashwant Smgh Thakur, Dy. AC}. fér the State. WRIT PETITI6N U?§DER ARTI€LE 226 OF THE CGNS‘TETUTIGN OF INDIA ORDER (08.12.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Trainee) on a fixed pay 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 entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by the MP. State Ad ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Madhukant Yadu as 56 Others Vs. State ofMlP. £5 Others) wh ere 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 3 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 theabove submission made by the counsel for the partiesf: the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitionerxisgg‘ranted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in @ the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 5.1.2011. (Annexure P] 1) and in mm, the concerned reepondent is directed 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 Smite Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892f93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected fmm the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny 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 strictiy in accordance with law. Sd/- t Pritinker- 3iwakar Judge