% ^•-•^^s^ ^^•y'" ^•••-"" c^fJ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P.(S1No. 30^ OF 2010 x PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Hajarilal Gabel, aged about 50 years, S/o.Shri Pahar Singh Gabel, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Labed Khurd, Block & Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Y 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary School Education Departinent DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Director, Public Instruction Departinent Korba (C.G.) 3) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal & Welfare Department, Korba ( C.G.) ^" :4) Block Education Offlcer, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y '-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILA8PUR WRTT PETmON tS) No. 304 of2010 PET1TIONER : HajarilalGabel. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : StateofChhattisgarh&O&ers. WRTT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Aenibotri, J. Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Sfari M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate far flie State. ORALORDER (Passed on 22"u day of January, 2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heanil finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subimts that tiie petitioner suhmits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teadier m the year 1983 on probation on a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- His ease being similar to that offhe petitioner in Vtjay Kumar Kaser v. State ofC.G. & Others, made a representation to tfhe respondhit-aufhorities for grant of similar relief. This Court, in Vjjay Kumar Kaser (supra), ordered tfiat the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as was ©-antedby fhe Madhya Pradesh State AdminisEfrative Tribund in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Jadu & 56 Others v. State ofM.P. & Others). Shri Bajpai iurther submits that the issue involved in the present case and Vt/ay KumarKaser (supra) is fhat whether the petitioner is ^atitl^ to re^ilar pay scale ^.ef. the date of imtial appomtmeirt or after conyletion of probation period. 2. Shri Bajpai further submits that till date.»no decision haa been takeii on the representation ofthe petitioner by the authorities. !W.P.(S)No. 596 of2008 yj 3. Leamed ctmnsel appearing for the State/respondents subnaits does not controvert tfae aforesaid submission and submite that a^ropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. 4. In view ofthe above, it is expected tfiat siace law is well seNed on the above issue, fhe respondent aufhorities must consider and decide Ifae representation ofthe petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferabfy within a period ofeight weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order, in accordance with law, on its own merits, subjeet to verification ofthe facts. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Amit