^ .r. IQ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^0 OF 2011. PETITIONER \&y^/'. ^^^'' ^.);'»-v" ^••/^y /\>'''&''y y\€^ ^" ^y ^-•••" ^ RESPONDENTS ?•' Suresh Kumar Dhruw, S/o. late Shri Ram Ratan Dhruw, aged about 57 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Joratarai, (C) Block Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS / : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) s.t WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^,,^—-;.^, '<^&2^ \^3/ >^^^;~:c^^^ |»|i»»«i8i»^-. HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILA8PUR SB : HOH'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKBR W.P.(S1.NO. 6970/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDBNTs versus Siiresh Kuinar Dhruw State ofChhattisgarh & Others Shri Somkaiit Verma, counsel for tlie petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for die State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLS 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF EHDSA ORDER (24.11.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner ui tlie present petition is that the petitioner was appouited as Deputy Tea.cher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 aiid after conipletion of probation, he was graated regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe couusel for the petitiouer is tliat he is entifled for regular pay scale wifh efFect froin the date of ioitial appointaient and his case is squarely covered with niimber of decisions passed by this Court arid also fhe judgra.ent rendered by the M.P. State Adinmistrative Tribiinal, Jabalpur m 0<A* JVo. 274S/89 pSS'adhukant Yes&u & 56 Others Vs. Statc c/SS.P. Ss Others^where m it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entifled for regulai' pay scale froni tiie date of their raitial appoiatnient. It is not disputed by bofh the parties fhat fhe niatter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by fhe Apex Court upholdiag fhe decision of tlie Tribunal to tlie effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers arc entifled for regulai' pay scale froni the date of their initial appoiiitment. In view of tihe above subsnission ma.de by fhe counsel for tlie parties, Uie petition is disposed of in the same teinis i.e. tlie petitioner is granted liberty to niake a representation, if so advised, in. ^»..,, '^ 1s ,J ^. .M' ^ '^-^f^ ..^/ Jr the Ught of the aforesaid judgnient aad the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 5) aud ia tum., titie concemed respondent is directed to cousider fheir case on its own nierits and iii its perspective. If the petitioner stands on fhe same footiag as per order passed by the State Adiniaistrative Tribimal ia MadhukaBt Yadu (supra) aad subsequentiy coiilirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner niay be entifled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from fhe State autliorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of fhe facts. It is m.ade clear that tliis court has not expressed any opiaion on fhe nierits of fhe case aud fhe authority concemed would be at liberty to decide fhe representation stdctly in accordance witii law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge