IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS^ No. '*' lu^ ^2011 PETITIONER RESroNDENTS ^'.fe .^;;^^^ Tulsiram Dehari,S/o Somnath Dehari Age about- 55 years, Occupation- service, Upper Division Teacher, Government High school,Risora, Block Barmkela,District- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) p.ese11"' AAad-' 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) -3. Block education Officer, Baramkela, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETmONJJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA The petitioners most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under:- 1. Particulars ofthe Petitioners: - As mentioned in the cause title. .<:--<^ ®^^w S^T '<<l<lldt|,. rixily'tA, I^TRPp: iv^o. ^iff,3/n 3?I^f'^a^7 ( iqf'iiyl) TOIIWdteiai^I SB : Hon'ble ShriiVianinara Mohan Shrivastava. J. 08-88=2Q11 ute Shri Amlt Sharma, counset for ynrj ^raveen uas, ueputy With the consent of iearned finally. ne petitioner was appointea Rs.100/- in the year 1974. After succt was gramea reguiar pay scaie. Learned counsej appearing for in me case is as 10 wnemer, tne pel efrect from the date of initial appointm^nt i ne issue invoivea nerein wasl Administrative Tnbunal, Jabaipur in others v. State of M.P. & others'), w) teachers are entitled to reguiar pay| aopointment. l ne maiter was taKen Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. Th< Supreme Court. uDhoiding the deci^i Teachers/Asslstant Teachers are entl' mitiai appointment. Learnea counsei apDeanna ror wnite consiaenng me same issue Chhamsgarh & Others [yv.P.fS) N< aitowed the petitioners io make a Dennoner. (.iov^rnment Aavocate ror me State. ct>unsei for the paffles, the macer as Assistant Teacher on a n'xed issruiiy compieting me proisanon penoa ^iNwft;T ^1'Rlf ^ 'fS'Zt <fi|^l< ^sffim sn^i OT , he |ne petinoner suomits tnat me issue iitioner is entitled to regular pay scate or after compietion of probation considered by the Madhya ».A.No.2745/S9 {Madhukant Yadu ana 56 herein, it was held that the simiiariy scaie with eifect from the date of jp to the Hon'bie Supreme Court in saia Detrtion was aismissea DV tne ion of the Tribunai to the effect tied to regular pay scale from the date of the Detitioner further submits that this n Amar Sai Ram & Others v. State of i.4725/20061 by order dated 01/09/2006, semation wranin a penoa ot ten aays, raisins 'ilAigaiTCCT, uoi-ik'ii.*—ps/140—2/2011—1,50, .-—— T <s:°=r '<<NIW<<, •E*^iy'i(o, TsRTray ..cO.R'..l^..)..'LA^?.--...^A'^^ 3il^TTI^F (Xjc<i^«l<^E;) 7m 311^! *t| RirliEB: Deepti' ji»sae:!- aii their grievances and in turn, the the representation in an objective of receiDt ofthe representation. Accordingiy, the petitioner is g| aii his grievance, in the light of 05/01/2011 (Annexure P/2), and in tit decide the representation, if any, in a penoa ot tnree momns rrom tne verification ofthe facts. In view ofthe foregoing, this ^^i^a'f *ll*l^?i*^f fe^ Tf^T-^R ^sffira aii^i c<>ncemed responaentwas-airectea to aeciae maihner within a period of 30 davs from the date t-anted iiberty to make representation raising ttse aforesaid juagment ana cireuiar datea frn, me concernea responaent is aireaea to at;coraance wrtn law, on its own merns, vi/imin date ot' receipt of the representation, subjea to p^tition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Manindra Mohan Shr'vastava Judge ?fs^t*r ^fk^onwsr, <iq.iici<riq[—ys/i40—2/2011—i,50,(>oo.