.€). ^ t SINGIE BENCrt £NTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) W.P. f5)NO. M 13^ /2011 PETETCONER •^•1 ^r-., ^^-^: ^K^ .^^y RESPQNDENTS : 1. Smt. Rohini Sahu, aged about 47 years, Wd/o Late Samaru RamSahu, R/o Vi'llage Khorsi, bistt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Trible Weifare bepartment b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissi'oner Trible Welfare bepartment Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Dantewada (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer, bantewada (C.6.) 5. B!ock Education Officer Kuakonda, District- Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETETCON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTUION OF INDIA !^ ''^1 'l i ^r'^ y^ 311^1 ^Tl^fbF WT ^ii^i sr»*iw |llX11^' '2^ 'S'SEf ^|q|(r|<4, ^Tlri<H<|(o, fs«ni<H'4,< . LJ<P.S. Ml'3^/^ *I(ICTI (l»*ll<h——••••• •••—"•—••••"• •—""•^ 200 ^TT^T TI5RT ( yt^^-) wyTW^n^n^T SB s HON'BLE MR. tCE PreiTINKER &IWAKER 29.07.20il Shri K. S. Pawar, cou °M^f<vi<fli *ii^<riT"? fs^ <FSI^I< '^>3fRTR3TT^T nsel for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, P.L. f^r the State. Grievance of the pet|tioner ls that she is a widow of tate Samaru Ram Sjahu who was working as Assistant teacher and die^l on 24.07.1987. According to the petitloner/ her hus|3and was entitled to get the benefit of regular pay sca appointment and considjerlng the case of several employees, initially theo|"der was passed by Madhya Pradesh State Administrat(ve Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0-A- IVO« 2745/89 (M^huk^nt Yadu & 56 Qthei^ Vs. State of Af-P. & Whers was also passed in the 4as®of Ram Kumar Sahu v* State of Chhattisgarh 813/2007. Counsel for based on the above two this Court has allowed thej scale to the teachers withl petitioner make a fresh e from the date of his initlal and subsequently the order land another in W.P. No. the petitioner submlts thafc iudgments, in several ca^s, petltion granting regular pa^ effect from the date of thelr initiat appointment. Learned State coMnsel submits thiat tet the epresentation to respondent ^n^^N ^^^uil^, H<iRt(^ar—VS/140—2/201 1—1,50,000. 3?T^T ^T ^Jcb WT 3TT^?T sFqNpT r>- *II*ICTI a»iict» 75T-<41^|Q1<4, ^Ti1<H<|(o, [®l<<11^t4,< ^-^.......^;.f:.^..:...ul.l3?/!/... ^200 ^IT^FT Tra^r (yii^^/ ^<nw9ft1ci^n^?T No.3 who in turn shall de with law, Qr>i<if<n41i *ii*i<nf ^'ftlst <FSI^K ^ 3?iRw 3ir^r bide the same in aceorctence Accorclingly the petltlon is ctlsposect of wlth a direction to the petitloner |to fite a fresh representation before respondent No.3 v^tthln four weeks from today and in the eventuQiity of f|ling any such representation the same would be declde{J by the concerned authority in accordance wlth law wil months. It is made clear that^ any opinion on the merlts concerned would be representation strictly in ^ scrutiny of the facts. ;hin a further perlod of three this c©urthas not expressed of the case anct the authorlty at llberty to decide the iccordance with law after due Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^rw^ ^^r^uii^, u^Rt-^n^—is/140—2/201 i—i ,50,000.