IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. 3%23 l2g11 PETITIONER : / Samaypratap Singh, RESPONDENTS / 1. S/o Shri Ayodhya Pratap Singh, aged about 60 years, Headmaster, G0vt. Middle School, Manpur, Block Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattlsgarh, Through: the Secretary, , Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Tribal i Welfare Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, Distt. Surgua (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C-G-) Department, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTI LE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P.1$).NO. 78231201 1 Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for tha petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. for the State. {a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (15.12.2011) Grievance of the pditioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100- 150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 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 re’i‘idered by the MP. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 Wadhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others) where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. k naJ It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken 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 l scale from the date of their initial appointment. In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the panties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in a mm «imam x» PETITIONER SAmaypratap Singh Versus RESPONDENTS Sfate of Chhath'sgarh 8:, Othsrs on the merits of the case and The authority concerned would be at libelty t0 deckie the I‘epmsentation strictly in accoMance with law. y sw- Pritinker Diwaker ? Judge