c^ / ^ ^^gleB@neh IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITION fS) NO.M\LI^ /2011. PETITIONER: ^^- ^^<^ ^y^ ••y..--ny Dilman Toppo, son of Late Dhir Sai, aged about 51 years, working as Head Master, Govt. Middle School Kardana, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. -^•"•^' 'y Respondents versus ^'1 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, The Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2." Conimissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ^" 4. Block Education Officer, Batouli, Block Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22G OF TBE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (H<m«Mr. Justice Pritinker DiwateBr) Writ Petition fS) No. 4146 of201A PETtTIONER Dilman roppo VERSUS RESPONDENTS State oif Chhattisgarh and others Shri Marish Khuntiya, counsel for the petttioner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. forthe State. WRFT PETmON UNDERARTECl.g 226 OFTHE CONSTrrUTIGN OF XNDIA ORDER (01.08.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition Is that the petitioner was appolnted as Deputy Teachar on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 anct after successfully completlng the probatfon period, he was granted regular pay scate. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petltloner is ttiat he is entitled for regutar pay scale with efFect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely ooverod with number of declsions passed by thls Court and also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Administrative Trtbunal, Jabalpur in O.A. IVo. 2745/89 (Mailhukaat Yadu Sk S» Others Vs. State of M.P- & Ot^ers) wher^n (t has Iseen hetd that similarly placed teachers are entltled for regutar pay scale from the date of their initlal ^)pointment. 3. It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court birt tte appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers^Assistant iI -2-- Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their jnjtial appointment. 4. In vlew of the above submission meale by the coynsel for the parttes, the petition is disposed of in tha same terms i.e. the petitloner is granted tiberty to make a r^>resantatlon, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) and in tym, the concerned respondent Is directed to consider hls case on tts own merits and In its perspective. If the petitioner stanetson the same footlng as per order passed by the State Administrative Trlbunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court ln Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitted to same reltef aecordingly. 5. It fs expected from the State authorities tp pass suit^bfie orcler after due scrutiny of the facts, 6, It is made dear ttiat this court has not expressed ar»y opinion on the merits of the case and the authortty CQncemed would be at liberty to decide the representatlon strlctly in accordance with law. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge