J C^ ^t^/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P, fS) No. '?^>\\ /2011 PETITIONER(S) ^x^ Y^S?;^ ,^^i^-r /1^'p-"" ^y ^ ^•'^" '^••' »«•• (1) Ghanshyam Singh Thakur, S/o. Shri Vishram Singh Thakur, aged about 55 years, working as Head Master, District Institute of Education 8s Training, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) (2) NUambar Singh, S/o. Shri Indra Bhasan Singh aged about 54 years, working as Lecturer Higher Secondary School, Silahd, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1) • State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) District Education Officer, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/?27 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'TST ^|q|ci4, ®tt|<H'|(»,fs|(»)|yi^< (&)\^0 .32(1 sir^r •viv (Tpfg^i) 3l^V W h-V4l cfSfT 3TT^T jSi^iE^ -•V 'RaiWHftg sn^i cni^^^ll TTTI^[f ^f [^^ Tf^^R ^3iRFT3!^?I sB : Hon'bie ShriJVianinara Monan s 29-OS-2011 Shri Vinod Deshmukh, oounsei Shri Sushil Dubey, Government With the consent of learned nnaily. Learned counsei appearing fo invoived in the case is as to whether, scale with effect trom tne date OT probation penod. ihe issue invoiveci herein was Administrative Tribunai, Jabaipur in O. omers v. StateofM.P. &others),\w teachers are entitied to regular pay appointment. i he matter was taken Leave Petition (Civil) No.6692/93. The| Supreme Court, upholding the decisi| Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entill initial appointment. Learned counsei appearing toj court, whiie oonsidenng the same !ss| Chhaitisgarh & Others rw.P.(S) No| aiiowed t'ne petitionersto maKe a r^ raising aii tneir gnevances and in turn| decide the representation in an object[ the date of receipt ofthe representatio| \ ^nvasiava, ^_, |r the petitioners. Advocate for the State. co(jnset for the parties, the maiter is heard the petiiioners subm'ts tnat tne issue |the petitioners are entitied to regular pay |itiat appointment or atter completion or. ;onsidered by the hiadhya Pradesh State IA.NO.2745/89 {Madhukant Yadu and SS lerein, it was heid thai the simiiarly situated tecaie v/ith effect from the date of initiai to the Horfble Supreme Court in speciai said petition was ctismissed bythe Hon'bie >n of the Tribunal to"the effect that the led to regular pay scaie from the date of ub t'ne petitioners further submits that this le in Amar Sa> Ram & Others v. State of 4725/2006] by order dated 01/09/2006, >resentation within a penod of ten days, t'ne concerned respondent was directed to /e manner within a period of 30 days from 4 /" ^- XI-HG—78 3rcT ^]<)|CT^, Qtil'y'lfl, fa«ni^^< C?')vvJ3. Z^H 111 sn^r ipRi- (ipi^q^ET) 3TR?T W hi\* TfSTT 3TT^T ffi^ic^ TOITWHfta 311^1 9 Learned counset for the petition^rs further submits that now t'ne State Govt. Sl ^as 'ssuea an oraer on &"' January, ; ordered that those vi/ho have been a^pointed before 1982 and after 1995 on a fixed pay, are entitied to reguiar pay upon successful completion of2 years |scale from the date of initiai appointment j^eriod of probation. raising alt their grievances, in the iight representation, ifany, in accordancew| in view OT tne Toregoing, tnis pet <fti<i^<i1i tn^ff ^f t^rct ^-^ ^srRnafiisi 011 (Annexure P/6) wherein, it has been Aocordingly, the petitioners ar^ granted iiberty to make representation of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05/01/2011, and in turn, the conoerrfed respondent is direoted to decide the |th iaw, on its own merits, within a peripd of three months from the date of receipt it>f the representation, subject to verifioatio.n of the facts. tion is flnaliy disposed of. z Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastavaj Judge