Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/7740/2011 of NAHAR SINGH VERMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 16 December 2011
HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.} W.P. (S) N0. r7^o /2011 PETTTIONER : '} ^ y^e^ ^•:"^^^y:<^~'^ RESPONbENTS : 1. (!—f-^\'y'^^i;usr^/ Nahar Singh Verma, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Verma, Head Master, Government Middle School Dagori, BJock Bilha,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J-.
IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (C.6.}
r7^o
W.P. (S) N0.
/2011
PETTTIONER :
'} ^y^e^^•:"^^^'^y:<^~
:1.
RESPONbENTS
(!—f-^\'y'^^i;usr^/
Nahar Singh Verma, aged about 59years,[S/o][ Late][ Shri]Ramprasad Verma, Head Master, GovernmentMiddle School Dagori, BJock Bilha,bistt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh
Through Secretary,
School Education Department
b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
The Director
Public Instructions
Raipur (C.G.)
District Education Officer, Bifaspur,
District-Bilaspur (C.G.)
Block Education Officer
Bilha, bistrict- Bilaspur (C.6.)
Joint birector, Treasury, Account
Pension, Bilaspur, (C.6.)
WRIT PETETION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTtTUION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SB : HON^BLE MR. JUSTICE PRXT!NKBR DIWAKER
W.P.(B).HO. 7740/2011
Nah.ar S-mgh Veriaa
PETSTIONER
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh &Others
RESPONDENTs
Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for the petitioner.Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State.
WRJT PETITIOH UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOrjNDIA
ORDBR(16.12.2011)
Grievan.ee of tlie petitiouer in tlie preseut petition is that thepetitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher/Tramee on a fi-xed payscale of Rs.100-150 aiid after completion of probation, he wasgraiited rcgular pay scale ofRs. 169-300.
Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitledfor regiilar pay scale with effect from the date of iiiitial appoiatiaentand his case is squarely covered with number ofdecisions passed bythis Coiirt aiid also fhe judgnient rendered by tbeM.P.StateAdministrative Tribimal, Jabalpiir iii O.A. JVo. 274S/S9 (MetelhukantYesdu <& 56 Others Vs. State oJ'M.P. & Others^where ia it ha.s beenheld tliat simiiarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scalefrom fhe date of tlieu' mitial appointment.
It is not disputed by both the parties that the niatter was takeniip by the State to tlie Apex Court biit the appeal was also disinissedby the Apex Court upholding tlie decision of tlie Tribunal to the effectthat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled for regiilar payscale frora tlie date of their iaitial appouitiaent, In view of fhe above subraission m-ade by the counsel for tbepailies, the petition is disposed of in the same tenns i.e.tliepet.itioB.er is graiited liberty to m.ake a representation, if so advised, m :-^./'/'^&iSSh?l^'^£^' '^,^^
the Ught of the aforesaid judgm.ent aad the circulai' dated 5.1.2011(Annexure P/2) aiid in tum., fhe concenied respondent is directed toconsider their case on its own raerits and in its perspective. If tliepetitioner staads OTL the same footiog as per order passed by theState Admuiistrative Tribunal iu Madhukant Yadxi(supra)andsubsequently coufimied by fhe Suprem.e Court io, Special LeavePetition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order da.ted 03.01.95, the petitionermay be entitied to saine reUef accordiiigly.
It is expected from tbe State autiiorities to pass suitable orderafter due scnitiny ofthe facts, It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed axiy opiiiionon Uie merits of fhe case aod the autiiority coiicemed would be atlibert}7 to decide the representation stricfly in. accordaoce witti law.
Sd/-Pritinker DiwakerJudge