|M|gg||8|gg@gUBBiSi!BlBfias83%l?NNMttElsMI^^ SISIHSSIfilBSSiBBIsiBUKSSSStSiS^^ |jgggg|ggiBgg|(8ifl|||g|g|§|u^)|^s^^ iiiilBUBiSMMig®8ttfi8Bl %g Mi BBBBilBSiiilliSilJ®SiiWB":lil^iBalii^ S^WSS^gWW^ %j!gl|ij|l@i,u^igiag|gsiaj,i^s[^tt-^N^ 'iSSS'WSg^^M^ Sj^^SBSSBSISIKSfeialSI' |^jg|g|ggg|Sgg|g|g|gjjg|jg|;^;|j^^a@!!g^ SBiSSSSSSBg8gl*®N?I%?® ¥SISSII!%^ISffll>('ISffiM^®%ltl'iMM^^ VW. •®ISfi®SS%lfi®iQB^RSW.Will8®(3iB^ ''• .^^iwgg|g|gjggj|gs|^|rg,3?% ;Sfi8B88§K881M13s&iiSiSiffiiM^MW (fci^aa^ ffiSi^il^iSSi§ :8 SiSi81ig;iw:S^li^^ BII%BSiBBBSIS®^WSSIBii:SS'iKS^81M ^^g^Jj^jg|8jjjujjffjjj|gg!gjljjjjg^^jjj| S|g||gilS,j@)Si81®!g®iS4|i®lffiUB(^ SSS! isssa&'@sW WWsiSSK SSSK ^MMilS :;;^"y •:<:2-.£2» iSitiiBia.ifliasaw <?-<-;-.. ;:^ ^> HIGHCOURrOReHHATTlSGARHATBILASHJR W. P. (s( No. 5819 crf2006 Petitioner : O. P.Ogce Vcrsus Respondents State Ckwenunent ofChtaattisgarh & othras (Ma^e BeaA: HonTtilc Mr. Justice Satidi K. Agriliotrf. Shri Ajay SUrivMtava, Advocate for fbK Ptttitioxtcr. ShriSunait Verma, Pand lai^rer fi>r fhcState/respondente. ORDER (27& OGtober, WM^ ^. Learaed coiuisel appearii^ for fhe pctitionfir submits fhat fhe petitioiter was jappoiatat on the post of UppCT DwistMi T^cher vide oider dated 30.6.1993 (AimexuieP/l)m1hepay scalc of Rs. 1400 - 2640. tt is fiufher submitted byteamwt couaaetdw fhe petitioaer tfaat fw thc firsfe two years Ihe petittaier was psrfd on^r Rs. 1400/- p.xa. fhough he was eiitifled to get nioiiffity psgEnaent on fhe basis oficgular pay scate duru^ that pcriod. Leamed counsel for fhe petitk>ner placed reliamx oa a decision of fhe Madhya Pradesh State Adnuiustrathre Trttiunal passed. on 24.8.1992 in O.A.NO. 2745 of89( Malhukant Y^u and 56 ofhcrs Vs. State of M.P. & othera) anid. also on a decision paased on 18.2.2000 in O.A.No. 3006/1993 (Utam KumarBanjari ando&era Vs. StatBOfM.P.&ofhers). In tliat case &e petitfatners wete appointed on fhe post of Uiyer Divisicai Teacher in liie pay scate of Rs. 1400-2640 wde order dated 29.3.1992 but sabsequenfly fhe Joint Director, Public Instructioiis, Hoshai^sibad p^ased the oidcr fhat iustead of payiuent of salaiy in fhe legular scale of pay of ;:?-'- ^^ ^ ^L.. "i^ Thakur Rs. 1400-2640 fhe peti.twners woiild be paid oBfy consolidated fixcd su-m. ofRs.800/- fi>r fhiee years'and only aflser fhree ycara, fhey would bc givea salaiy in ftw regular scate of pay. Lcanacd Tribiuial quashed: fhe Qrder passed by fhe Joint DirectM- smd directed the iiespondents to make iMymentof salaiy in fhc regular scate of'pay ot Rs. 1400-2640 atoiig with all applicable aBowancea firom ffaedate ofqppouitmentofthepetitioDcrs. Learaed eounsel &r tfae petitioaer fiufher submits that tlw question of ]am aod the fects involwed ia fhis petition are too siuular to that of in the cases cited above. Leamed (xmasel appcaru^ for the respoadeats feurty concedes aDd agtees with ttte submissioa made by fhe petitioner. For the abovestated reasons fhe petitioner is gianted fodr Weetes timte to inake B lepresentationbefoxcthecom.petEntaufhoritiesto consider ttie case of the petitioaer in thc same terms as per the oider dated 18.2.2(X)0 passediaO.A.No. 3006/1993 and the orier dated 24.8.1992 p^sed in O.A.No. 2745/1989. In thc ewnt (he petitioner staiids on fhe samc position, fhe petitfoncr is entifled to fhe saine reUe£ For tfae reasons stsited above, fhis pctition 1s disposed o£ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge