Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/7756/2011 of LABHA RAM TENGWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 16 December 2011
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Sl No.y^/^011 PETITIONER: ,.:"y. Labha Ram Tengwar S/o Late. Shri Phenkuram Tengwar aged about 54 years, presently working as Lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Aramsahi Block- Masturi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS y RESPONDENTS: 1: 2.
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.
r
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPURW.P. (Sl No.y^/^011
Labha Ram Tengwar S/oLate.Shri Phenkuram Tengwaragedabout 54 working years, presentlyShri Phenkuram Tengwaragedabout 54 working years, presentlyasLectureratGovt.HigherSecondarySchool,AramsahiBlock-MasturiDistt.BilaspurSecondarySchool,AramsahiBlock-MasturiDistt.Bilaspur PETITIONER:
,.:"y.
(C.G.)
VERSUS
y
RESPONDENTS:
1:State of Chhattisgarh
Through: - Secretary, DepartmentofEducation Mantralaya, D,K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.)ofEducation Mantralaya, D,K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.)
2. The District Education Officer,District -Bilaspur (C.G.)District -Bilaspur (C.G.)
3^ The Principal
Govt.Higher Secondary School,Aramsahi Block- Masturi Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.)Aramsahi Block- Masturi Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.)4.Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension,Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.)Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.)
WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA
•^l
COURT OP CHHATTESGAKH AT BILABPUR
SB : HON»BLBMR. JUSTICB Pm-TINKBR DIWAKER
W.P.IS'l.NO. 7756/2Q11
PETITIOKERLabha. Ra.ni Tesigi^arversusRESPONDBNTsStaxe of Chhattisgarh &Otliers Shri Ashwaiii Shukla, couusel fbr fhe petitioner.Shri N.NaIia Roy, P.L. for the State.
WRIT PETITION XJHDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTIONOF INDSA
ORDER116.12.2011)
Grievaace of the petitioner ia the present petition is tliat tb-epetitioner was appointed as Assistaiit Teacher on a fixed pay scale ofRs.100-150 and after conipletion of probation, he was graiitedregular pay scale ofRs. 169-300.
Coutention of tlie counsel for the petitioner is tliat she isentitled for regular pay scale with effect froni th.e date of mitialappoiiitnient and his case issc|iiarelycovered with ni.rmber ofdecisions passed by this Court aad also tlie judgHieut rendered bytiieM,P.StateAdsnniistrative Tribunal,Jabalpurin.O^A.N^.274S/89 (Metdhtikant YwSxi Ss 56 Others Vs. SteKte ©fM.P. SsQthcr^} where ia it has been held that similaxly placed teachers areentitl.edforregTilarpay. scalefs'orathedateofliieix'iiiitialapporatinent.
It is not dispiited by both the pai'ties that the matter was takcnup by tlie State to tlie Apex Court. but the appeal was also dismissedby fhe Apex Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribiinal to tlie effect.that tlie Teachex's/Assistant Tea.chers are entitled for regular payscale from. the date of tlieir iiiitial appo:bitixieB.t.
In view of the above subisiission made 'by the counsel for theparties, the petition is disposed of io. the saine terais i.e,fhe •^..•.""%„•• '^^K^m 1i,^'^'
^/
petitioner is graiited Kberty to raake a representation „ if so advised, iatlie light of the aforesaid judgsaent and the circular dated 5.1.2011(Annexure P/ 2) aiid ia tuin, the concemed respondent i% drrected toconsider their case on its own nierits and ia its perspective. If thepetitioner staxids on the saiae footing as per orcier passed by theStateAdniin.isti'ative Tribunal ia Madhukant Yadu(supra)axidsubseqziently coBfsrmed by tlie Supreme Court iti Special LcavePetitiou (Civil) N0. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95.. tlie petitionermay be entitled to saine reUef accordhigly.
It is expected from the State a.uthorities to pass siiitable orderafter due scnitisiy oftlie facts.
It is inade clear tliat this court has not expressed any opioionon ttie merits of the case aiid the authori.ty coxiceroed woiild be atMbei^ to decide fhe representetion stdctly in. accordaoce witJi law.
Sd/-Pritinker DiwakerJudge