SINGLE 8ENGH IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR (C.©.) W.P. (S^ N0. ^^0 /2011 ^ PETrTCONER > '^'^y' ^)-^K/ ^y <?-y' ^y RESPONDENTS 1. ^ Madhusudan Vaishnav, Aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri T.D.Vaishnav, Upper bivision Teacher, Janpad Middle Schooi Takhatpur Block Takhatpur, bistrict-BJJaspur (C.&.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schooi Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Pubiic Instructions Raipur (C.6.) District Education Officer, Biiaspur, District-Bifaspur (C.G.) BJock Education Officer Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur {C.G.) Joint Director, Treasury, Account Pension, Biiaspur (C.G.) ^ t-l^aLel t^.Q^lu ^ 6. The RrincipJ'e. Janpad Takhatpur BIock Takhatpur. Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2: 3.- 4. ^ - l (,' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCCLE 226 0£J~HE CONSTETUION OF INDIA ^. HIGH CQURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPILR SB : HON^BLB MR. JUSTICB PmTINKBR D1WAKBR PBTITIONBR RB8POESDENTS W.P4SS.NO. 6590/2011 Madhusudan Vaishnav versus State ofC.G. & Othei-s Shri K.S,Pawar, counsel for tlie petitioaer. Shri Yashwa&t Smgh Thakm', Deputy A.G. for the State. WRIT PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTSTUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (11.11.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner ra fhe present petition is fhat tiie petitioner was appoiated in the year 1.976 as Deput}^ Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 for a period of one year and fhereafler in fhe year 1977 on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 150 for a period of one year, After completion of probation, m fhe year 1978, he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Contention of fhe counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect froni the date of initial appointinent aad his case is squarely covered wifh nuniber of decisions passed by fhis Court aad also tbie judgment rendered by fhe M.P, State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No, 274S/89 (Mcuthufeant Yesdu & 56 Others Vs» State ofM»P< & Ofhers^where m it has been held that smiilarty placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale froni the date of thLeir mitial appointnient. It is not disputed by bofti the parties tliat fhe matter was taken up by fhe State to fhe Apex Court but fhe appeal was alao disiaissed by fhe Apex Court upholditig the decision ofthe Tribunal to fhe effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitied for reguiar pay scale froni the date of tlieir iaitial appointnient. '^sy r In view of fhe above subraission niade by the counBel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the sanie tenixs. ie. fhe petitioner is graated liberty to make a representation^ if so advised, ia fhe Mght of the aforesaid judgnient and the circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/2 ) aad in. tura, fhe concenied respondent is directed to consider his case on its own inerits ao.d in its perspective. If fhe petitioner staads on the same footio.g as per order passed by tiie State Admiaistrative Tribunal rri MadhukaBt Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by fbe Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, tlie petitioner inay be entitied to same reMef accordmgly, It is expected from fhe State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutbiy offhe facts. It is made clear that fhis court has not expressed aay opmion on the merits of fhe case aod the authority concemed woiild be at Uberty to decide fhe representation stdctiy m accordance wifh law, Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge