<!S&—ai& ^ '''^•^••.- ^^\ ^Ss-ss HIGH COURTOFGHHATTISGAaHAT BILASPUR PETITIONER *'SE. WMT PETITION (S)No. 2551 of2008 Smt. Sharda Tiwari W/o Shivshankar Tiwari, aged about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govermnent Primary School Khokhara, Block NawagMh Distriet Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPO^^)ENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throy^i: - Secretary, Department of Education, Mautralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Educatioii QfBcer, Di^rict Janjgir- Champa(C.G;> - : 3. The Block Education Officer, Blook Nawagaifa District Janjgir-Charapa(e.G.) WRTT PETITIONUNDERARTICL&226 GF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB:HMa'MeShriSatishK.Agirihotri,J. Present: Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate tbfthepetitioner. ; ;- Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State.. ORALOBDER (Passedbn 05tB day of May, 2008) Withfhe consent ofthe parties, the matter is takenup forhearing fmally. 1, The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 150/-. After completion oftwo years of probation period, she was granted regular payscaleofRs. 169-300/-. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tiiat the issue mvolved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitledto regular pay scale w.e.f. the date initial appointmetit or after eompletion ofprobation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was eonsidered by fhe Madhya Pradesh State Administrative TribunaL Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State ofM.P. & olfaers), wherein it was held thatfhe similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of iiutial appomtmeut. The matfer was taken up to HonT^Ie SypBeme Cpurt m Special Leave Petitkin (Civil) No. 6892/93. Tto said ipetition was •^w^^s^ ^:-^ ^,,-2.. dismissed by Ihe Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decisioa of the :Tribunal to the efFect tfaat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular payspale fi'om date ofinitial appointment. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner also subnrits that this court, while considering fhe same tssue in Amar Sai Ram & others Vs. State of. . CMiattisgarff^ others [W.P. (S);No. 4725/2006] by orier dated i.2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation along with copy ofthe petifionand annexures within a period often days, raising all their gievanees aad in tum 1lie concemed respondent was directed to • ^ deddetherepTesentaticui»an<3bjectiye!:maanerwithinaperiodof30days irom the date afreceipt ofthe representation. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is .granted liberty to make a representation raismgallherg'ievancesandinfum.tlieebncemedrespondentis directed to decide-the representatipn, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of reeeipt of Ihe representatiQii. ;. : 6. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ^ Sd/-. . SatishK.Agnihotri ^^•.•Judge'. • •w ajnit