•SmQieBei ^' . p- > (Ga"L-- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (W.P. (S) No. ....^.^.^.L..../2011l PETITIONERS ^' A.1 ^^ ^y^ ......^:.;-^'^1 , ^•"yy..<-"/:.A ^y/'"^v ^<^-"" ^^v RESPONDENTS:/4. Somar Singh S/o ; Bhital Ram; aged about - 50 year; Working as Head Mastar, Government Primary School Ergawan; Block Office - Lakhanpur; Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block - Rajpur; District - Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH C^URT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON»BLBMR. JU8TICB PRITXNKBR DIWAK^l W.P.ISl.NO. S601/2011 PBTITIONBR Somar Singh ver^ixs RESPONDBNTS State ofC.G. & Ofhers Shri Viplav Shrivastava, counsel for fhe petitioner* Shn Bhaskar Pyasi, P,L. for fhe State. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTIGLB 226 OP THB CONSTITOTIOW OFINDIA ORDBR (21.09.2011) The petitioner was iaitiaUy appoicited as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs. 150 and fhereafter he was granted regular pay scale on completion ofhis probation period. The question of law iavolved herein is as to whetiier fhe petitioner is entitied to regular pay scale w.e.f fhe date of iaitiial appoiatoQLent or from the date ofcompletioa ofhis probation period. Counsel appeariag for ihe petitioner as wefl as fiw fhe 8tate jointly submit that fhe facts aixd question of law iavolved ia fhe present writ petition are fhe same as to fhat ixi W.P.(S) No, 5976/06 (Sushil Tiwari auad Others v. State Goverament of Chhattisgarti & Otihiers) which was aHowed vide order dated 07.11.06, Coiiasel for fhe petitioner subioits that he may be pearmitted to file representatlon before fhe coxnpeteat authorily and ia tem fhe authority may be directed to decide fhe same ia fhe Ught of flie abovementioned order passed by fhis Court and fhe ciroular dated 12th December 2006 vide Amiexure P-5. Counsel for fhe State has no objection if fhe petitioner makes any such represeiitation and fhe same is decided ia accordactece with '^•-'^.'Sih ^^ ••^,^/ ^ ^ law and tihie order p^sed by fhis Court and also in view of fhe circular (Annexure P-5). In view of the above aubmission made by the counsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed ofwifh a direction to fhe petitiioner to xnake reprcsentation before fhe coinpeteiit autfaority wifhin fhree weeks froni today and m fhe eventiiality of makiag any sxich reprcsentation fhe same weuld be decided by tfae concenied anfhonty after considermg fhe entire facts of fhe case wifhia a period of ft>ur monfhs fhereafter, It is inade clear fhat fhis Court has xiot expi'essed aay opiaion on merits offhe case aiid fhe aufhority concemed woiild be at liberty to decide fhe same strictiy ui accordaace witih. law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge