O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a direction to refix the pay of petitioner from the date of initial appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 169-300 with all consequential benefits.

2. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner submits that similar controversy has been decided by this court vide order dated 19/12/2008 passed in WP No. 6411/07 in the matter of Shivlal Vs. State of MP & others. He has prayed for same direction in the present case also.

3. Counsel for respondent / State has no objection.

4. This court in the matter of Shivlal (supra) had passed the following order: -

“The petitioner claims to be working on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department of the State Government. He is claiming fixation of his pay at par with other Assistant Teachers in the scale of Rs.169-300/- with subsequent revision of pay scale from time to time. His case is that similar question was involved in various cases including Writ Petition No.5789/2003 Mikal Vasuniya Vs. State of M.P. decided on 08.09.2005 and Original Application No.830/1993 Shankar Jhenu Vs. State of M.P. decided on 09.05.1994 by the MP State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench. He submits that as per the MP Pay Revision Rules, only one scale of Assistant Teachers has been mentioned and there is no categorization of pay scales, according to the qualification of Assistant Teachers. He submits that the respondents are illegally giving him lower pay scale of revised scale of Rs.152-252/- in place of revised pay scale of Rs.169-300/-. He thus prayed for re-fixation and revision of his pay scale as per the scale of Rs.169-300/- from the date of his initial appointment with consequential benefits and interest on arrears.

The respondents filed return and have stated that the petitioner was appointed in the scale of Rs.155-252/-, since he was only middle pass. The pay scale of Rs.169-300/- was to be given only to matric pass Lower Division Teacher (LDT), in terms of the Tarachand Pay Commission, Pandey Pay Comission, Choudhary Pay Commission, Revision of Pay Rules, 1987 and Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. In the circumstances, according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get the pay scale, which was given only to matric pass LDT. The respondents have further stated that the cases on which the petitioner has placed reliance are on different footings and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition may be disposed of, directing respondent No.1, Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, to consider the petitioner's grievance that in the State there is only one pay scale for Assistant Teachers and there can be no discrimination, old Teachers who are not matriculate cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scale. He further submits that while taking the decision the first respondent be directed to decide the matter uninfluenced by the stand taken by the respondents in the return.

The prayer appears to be reasonable and has not been opposed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of this petition, directing first respondent to consider the petitioner's claim afresh and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the stand taken by them in the return, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5. In view of the undisputed position, the present writ petition is also disposed of by ordering that the direction issued in the matter of Shivlal (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of present petitioner also and petitioner's case will also be examined in the light of the aforesaid order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Certified copy as pe