IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. qSé?’ OF 2011. /' PETITIONER : Indal Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Gait Ram Sahu, aged @09’4 e. WA about 55 years, Upper Division / RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavvan, Raipur (C.G.) W‘ 2. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dharntari (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA “a m $M M Khisora, Block Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) V E R S U S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P.(s;.No. 75621201 1 PE’HTIONER Inda} Ram Sahu VCmuS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &. Otlmrs Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the Stata. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTXTUTIDN OF INDIA ORDER (13.12.2011) Grievancc of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner was appomted as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100-150 and after completion of probation, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that she is entitled for regular pay scale with. eEect from the (late of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of _ decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment rendered by 'the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu 8a 56 Others Vs. State of MP. 8r. Others) Where in it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment. 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 scale from the date of their initial appointment. In View of the above submission made bv the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the patitioncr is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforcsaid judgment and the Circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure P/ 5) and in tum, tha concerned respondent is directed to consider their case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tiihunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) NO. 6892/93 by oxder dated. 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly. It is expected from the State authoxities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts. x {t is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at. liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. M .www.V. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge