•^.^ ».--, / ^ "\^ '^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. '"/ I7/76 / 2011 PETITIONER ,^° ^^ _^--) „..- ,^"?::.'^'i-'...-^ :..-\\ \^- RESPONDENTS Jal Singh Nag S/o Shri Chhatar Singh Nag, aged about 57 years, Occupation Service, Headmaster Posted at Government Primary School, Kudarbahara, Block Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2) The District Education Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA c,'^. ^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIONBR RESPONDENTs W.P.ISI.NO. 7748/2011 Jal Sixig.il Nag versus Stale of Chhattisgarh & Others Shri Somkaiit Venna, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. WmTPET!T£ONUNDBRARTICLE_226_OFTHE_CONSTlTUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (16.12.2011) Grievaiice of the petitioner in the preseut petitiou is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistaat Teacher ou a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular payscaleofRs. 169-300. Contention of tlie counsel for the petitioner is that she is entitled for regular pay scale witli effect froni tiie date of mitial a.ppointnient aad his ca.se is squarely covered with nuniber of decisions passed by tliis Court aad a]so the judgme.nt rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. N^ 274S/89 ^Swihukant Ya&u' & 56 Others Vs. Stcste of M.P. & Others) where iii it has been held th.a.t similarly placed teachers are entifled for regular pay scale from the dale of their iaitial appoisitinent. It is not disputed by both fhe parties that tlie matt.er was takeu up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal vvas also dismissed by tlie Apex Court upholdiiig the decisiou of tlie Tribunal to tlie effect that tlie Teachers/Assistaiit Teachers are entitled for regulai' pay scale froin the date of fheir iaitial appoiatnient. In view of the above subniission inade by the counsel for the paitles, the petition is disposed of iii fhe sam.e tercis i.e. the ^^. ff'/" ../ 1s "^'>. ^ petitioner is graD-ted Mberty to raake a represeiitation, if so advised, in tlie light of tlie aforesaid judgnient and tlie cn-cular dated 5.1/2011 (Annexure P/5) aad iix tura, the concemed respondent is directed to consider tlieir case on its own inerits aiid iii its perspective. If tlie petitioner staiids on tSie same footuig as per order passed by tlie State Admiaistrative Tribusial iii Madhukaiit Yadu (supra) aad subsequently confirmed by the Supreine Coiirt iii Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tJie petitioner niay be entifled to same relief accordingly. It is expected froin the State authorities to pass suitable order aft.er due scrutiny ofthe facts, It is m.ade clear that fhis court has not expressed an.y opin.iou oii tiie nierits of the case and the autliority concenied would be at Ubeit}^ to decide the representation strictly iii accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge