Silffij ^^^Cli GIE B| ^is IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIseARH ATAILASPyB WRIT PETCTION (5) N0.6035 OF.20U PETETEONER RESPONbENTS VERSUS l." / ^ .</ ".< v ^y'k^ ^••€y 2. - \'': < ..-^" 3. 6anesh S'mgh Koram S/o Late Shri PiSuram Koram, aged about 59 years, post of Head AAaster, working as &ovt. Middie SchooJ, Bartrai, Biock Podi'-Uproda, Distt. Korba {C.Q.} State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretory, Educotion Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.6.) District Education Officer, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.&.) Biock Education Officer, Biock Podi-Uproda, Distt. Korba (C.&.) L.-.- WRIT PETITEON UNbER ARTEaE_2260FJHE CONSTITUTION OF INblA •r--———— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JXJSTICE PMTINKBR KWAKBR PBTITIONBRS RBSPONDBNTS W.P.fSl.NO. 6030/2011 Gaoesh Singh Koram versus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioner, Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CON8TITUTION OP INDIA ORDBR (12.10.2011) Grievance of fhe petitioner ia fhe present petitfon is tfaat fhe petitioner was appointed as Assistaat Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of two years aad after conipletion of probation, he was graated regular pay scale of Rs, 169-300. Contention ofthe counsel for fhe petltioner is fhat he is entitied for regular pay scale wifh effect froxn ttie date of iaitial appoiatment aad his case is squarely covered witii number of decisions pa^sed by fhis Court and also fhe judginent rendered by fhe M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O^A. No. 274S/89 (aSeidhukan.t Yeidu & 56 Others Vs^ State ofM.P. & O^feers^where ia it has been held fhat similarly placed teachers arc entitled for regiilar pay scale firoia fhe date of fheir iaitial appoiatment. It is not disputed by bofh fhe parties fhat fhe inatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Coiirt upholdiag fhe decision offhe Tribunal to the effect fhat the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitied for regular pay scale froin the date of fheir iaitial appoiiiitoaient. In view of fhe above subinissioii inade by fhe counsel for fhe partles, fhe petition is disposed of ia the saaie tenns i.e. fhe petitioner is graated Uberty to inake a representation, if so advised, in ..<'^A,. y^ J ^.s^ib 1 % ^sy^ a fhe light of fhe aforesaid judgnient and fhe etrcular dated 27.12,08 and in tura, fhe conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own raerits and in its perspective, If fhe petitioner stands on fhe saoie footmg as per order passed by the State Adniinistrative Tribunal ia Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aad subsequenfly confinned by fhe Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civi^ N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, fhe petitioner may be entiUed to same rcUef accordiagly. It is expected fromi fhe State aufhorities to pass suitable oxder after due scrutfcay of fhe facts. It is raade clear tliat fhis courfc has not expressed aiiy opiaion on fhe cierits of fhe case and fhe aufhonty conceraed would be at Uberty to decide fbe representation sfcdctly ia accordaace wifh law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge