M U?” C5) ® $ingi¢a @amh /. RESPONDENTS (1) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through — The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) /District Education Officer, Mahasamund District Mahasamund ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/ DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. IN THE OF CHHATTISIéwL§T Bllf-ilSGPl-IIJR C.(§OURT W.P. (S) NoMSEg’.......2011 PETITIONER.................. Mantri Lal Koshriya, S/ o SEEri Hazaru Kosariya, Aged 55 20 ) ‘ Years, Lecturer., High School, Mg’Lr’A Gidhali Basna District Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANIN§RA MORAN SHRIVASTAVA mums) N0. 4538Ro1 1 PETITIONER Man Iri Lal Koshr'lya Versus RESPONDENTS Staie of (LG. 8m Othars WRIT PETXTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘ INDIA Amnearance: i Shn‘ Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (11.08.2011) The peu'tioner was initially appointed as Teacher on a iixed pay of Rs. 100. After completion of probation period. he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issued involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with edect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administtative Tribunal, Jabal‘our in O.A. NO. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 Others v. State of MP. & Others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale with eEect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tn'bunal to the ,eifect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Amar Sai Ram & Others Vs. § State of enhamsgarh & Others, mp4s) No. 4725/2006, by weer gtani eMin “w‘ dated 01.09.2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation Within, a period of ten days, raising all thc gn'avances. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a mpresenta’u’ou raising all the grievances in light of the afoxestated judgment and order dated 5. 12011 (Annexure P{5) and in tum, the concemed respondent is directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. In View of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. s Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge