®@ /v£l J37r gamg‘e 5ench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. WP. (S) No.g5$........ 2011 PETITIONER Ravishankar Vishal, S/o Shri Kshamanidhi, Aged 58 years H.M., Primary School, Ankori Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1) /The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 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. @ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ‘ x Writ Petition u/A 226 of the Constitution of India ‘Prgsent: - Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. (HI M§ Smita Ghai, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12‘“ August, 2011) With the consent of iearned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100I-. After successfully completing the probation period of 2 years, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue t «t '“ihyolved in the case is as to whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others v. State of M.P. & others), wherein, it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale with l effect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to ‘ the Hon'ble Supreme Court in special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said petition waé dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Amar Sai Ram & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No.4725/2006] by order dated 91/09/2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation within a ow ,, period of ten days, raising all their grievances. . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that now the State Govt. has issued an order on 5‘“ January, 2011 (Annexure P-5), wherein, it has been ordered that those who have been appointed before 1982 and after 1995 on a fixed pay, are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment upon successful completion of 2 years period of probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation jFaising all his grievances in light of the aforesaid judgment and circular dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure PI5), and in turn, the concerned 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 Tumane costs. we Sd/- ‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge