<' ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (Sl No. /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: l/-l'x3s?-" \.- ^i^^ ^•y^'^ yt^v3' .rf ?<"'J '^ Bharat Lal Yadav S/o Shri Kartik Ram Yadav aged about 55 Years occupation Head Master Govt. Middle School Dhatura, Block-Pali Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1—^Stateof Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. '^Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur District Raipur 3. Assistartt Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Joint Director Treasury,accounts, pension, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,cQ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTECB PRITiaKER DIWAKER W.P.ISS.KO. 6094/2011 PaTITIONER Bbarat Lal Yadav versus RESPOKDBKTS State ofC.Q. & Ofhers Shri Ashwani Shukla, coiuasel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy.G.A. for fhe State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE226 O? THE CONSTIITUTION OFINDIA ORDER (14.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in fhe present petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 for a penod of two years and aftcr completion of probation, be was grauted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from fhe date of initial appointment aud their case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Coiirt aad also the judgment rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O^A. JVo. 274S/89 (ISadhuleemt Tadu & 56 Others Vs. State ofJS.P. Ss Others) where iu it has been held that siuularly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale fix>in the date of fheir iuitial appouitm.ent. It is not disputed by bofh the pardes fhat the matter was taken up by the State to fhe Apex Court but the appeal was also disniissed 'VSy the Apex Court upholduig the decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froia the date offheir initial appointinent. Iii view of fhe above subnussiou niade by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of iu fhe same terms i.e. the petitioner is graated liberty to inake a representation, if so advised, ia y w the l^ht of fhe aforcsaid judginent and fhe circiilar dated 27.12.08 (Aanexure P/2 ) and in tum, the conceraed respondent is directed to consider their case on its own inerits aad ia its perspective. If fhe petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Admiaistrative Tribunal iu Madhukaat Yadu (supra) aad subsequeufly confinued by the Supreine Court in Special Leave Petition (Civfl) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same reUefaccordiagly. It is expected froni the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny ofthe facts. It is inade clear fhat ttiis court has not expressed aay opiaion on the luerits of the case and the authorily concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe representation strictly in accordaace with law. Sd/- ker Diwaker Judge 1