c (0- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. ^C)^ OF 2011. PETITIONER .^^\^ ^w .»* .^M -^^ _%y ^y -^' ..^' ^ /' Kesaru Ram Mahendra, S/o. late Shri Phuchand Mahendra, aged about 57 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Sonpairi, Block Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Treasury Offlcer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ s^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ..,>"- ^ko HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIBGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON^BLB MR. JUSTSCE PmTINKER DIWAKBR W.P.fSl.NO. 6968/2011 PBTITIONBR RESPON'DBBITs versus Kesani Raza Maliendra State of Chhatusgai'li & Others Shri Sooikaiit Verma, counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for tiie State. WKIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (24.11.2011) Grievaace of fb.e petifioner in the present petition is th.at the petitioner was appomted as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after coinpletion of probation, he was graiited regulai' payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of tlie counsel for tlie petitioner is that he is entifled for regular pay scale wifh effect frora the date of iaitial appointoieut and his case is squarely covered witii num-ber of decisions passed by fhis Court and also the judgment rendered by fbe M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir ia O.A^ N0. 2745/89 ftSa€thukGnt Yc&du Ss 56 € hersFs. State ^fM.P. & Others^ where in it has been held that smiilarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from fhe date of tlieir iiiitia! appoiDtaient, It is not disputed by both the parties that the niatter was taken up by tbe State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholdiag the decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect that fhe Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fro2H tiie date of their iriitial appointoieut. In view of fhe above subinission raade by the counsel for the parties, the petitiou is disposed of in fhe ^ame terms i,e. tlie petitioner is graated liberty to raake a represeutation, if so advised, in fhe Ught of fhe aforesaid judgnient aiid the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/5) aad ia tura, the concem.ed respondeut is directed to consider th.eir case on its own m-erits and iii its perspective. If the petitioner staads on the saine footing as per order passed by tlie State Administrative Tribunal ia Madhiikant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court ui Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0, 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same reUef accordingly, It is expected fronx the Stale autiiorities to pass suitable order after diie scrufciny ofthe facts, It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed aay opiaion oii fhe raerits of the case aad the authority conceraed would be at tibert}7 to decide ttie representation stdctly -ia accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge