BjiEvE C§URT {W C§E$§TTESGARH AT BEEASWJR WRIT PE?§T§0N (SW No. im5 0f2€398 ?ETETEGNER RE%P{3ND§NT§ Ek Ram Sahu S/o Séwi Makhai} lai Sahu, Ag: abow: 46 years, Assti. Teache; Govt. ?rimary Schooi, Mailidahig Biock Saza; Educatiw Distt. g Bemeiara, ' Dim. Burg (CS) . Eiiucatioa Siaia Gmri. & of Tribai Chhai‘iisgarh Departmelat Tiu‘ough D.K.S‘ : Secretary, Bhavan: Raiyur (CG) 2. District Educaiion Offlwr, Digit. ~Be111eta1‘& (CG) 3. Biock Educatim Officer, Biock « Saza Dim. Dug‘g {CG} WRET EBETETAGN KNEER AR‘E‘ICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF fNDiA AErss-snt: Sim Ssmkan‘; Vénna: AdvocaE far the petitioner. SE: Hia§§§e Sim? Sairégh k Agméwiié. 3. . ¥ : V , Shz‘i Abk Bakshi, Gm’smmem Advocme for me Sfata‘respezidgnis. ORAL ORDER (Passsd (m 18 ‘day 0f Febraary; 2068) Th6 yeiitioaer was iniiiaEiy appm’ntad on 093331998 as Assistam Teacher en a iixed pay 0f Rs. 1200/- 0a probation for a peried of 1W) years, Aiier completion ef preba‘iion, the petitioner was granted reguiar pay scale OfRs. 4000—608QxL en i8.(} 1 2% 1. The qaesition of 121w izwolved herein is asto Wheiher the peiitioner is entx’tie ’10 regulai pay scale Wiih egec‘: from the daie of inja'a} appoiimaent or from the daie of compEeiima A ofI)fobation xnerieti. Learned counsel apyeariizg for i§1e petitioner as wel‘a as for tee Statei’eespondemsjointly submii thae iiae facis and ques‘iion ofhw imr03ve<§ in the pe‘iition aye the same to that of W}. No. 1463 of 2096 (Aeman Jain Vs. 1‘21e State Govemmen‘i of Chhmisgarh & anothei'), which was a}1owed vide order dated 10.112005. Learned ceunse} §imher eubmiis that: this petition may be désmsed efiia the eame ierms. U) I L“; View of the above staimi submisgion made by leameti counsei for the pames, the Wg‘it patiiion is &}}owed in ike same €erms is. the pewionar is aiiewed t0 make a reprasentaiion Wii§3in a pérjod oftwo Wesks fi‘om ioday to respondeia$ Ne. 1 raising a1} Eis grievances: and i1: mm, :‘espondent Na. 2 Sinai} decigie the said rapresezx‘iation in an objective manner Wi 3S days from the date of réceipi 0f mob mmesenta‘tim, afkr considermg aE§ the poims rais-ai by the peiia'aner and mking into accoum :he order dated 31.1.2fJGO passed ivy the leameé State Administrative Tribunai in Original AppEcaiion Na M52 of i998, and if the psiiiioner s§az1§s on éhe same foot§ngs, as the petitianer in the Originai Applicatioa No. MS2 of 1998, tbn he be 9339 sanciimied the same pay scaia am} seniority. The vv'rii pemim} is agcordjngly §ispased of with $13 aforesaid direc‘ien, subject . to verificaiwn . . V ofthe Iacis. A RO , order asto costs. 1: Sd/- ‘ Judge thi‘a a parimi of Jail Amiz {% Satish K. Agnihmtg‘i l