HIGHW COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 598 of 2903 FETITIONER ‘ P.R.Suryawanshi, aged about 36 years: son of Shri D.R.Su1yawanshi, working as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School —~ Ramtalia, Block Biiha, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS .' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Depamnent of Education, Dau Kalyan Sing. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS @ 2. The Dist. Education Ofxcer, Distt. VBilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Honabie Shri Satish K. Ag‘lgotriz J. Presem: Shri Kunal Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshj, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed onW 30 day of January, 2008) 1. The petitioner was appointed on 26.06.1993 on probation for a period of two years a$ Assistant Teacher on a fixeci pay of Rs. 1200/-. After completion of his probation, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Learned counsel apoearing for the petitioner submits that the issue invoived in the case is asto Whether, the petitioner is entitied to regular pay scale with effect &om the date of initial appointment or atter completion of probation period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the'facts and question of law’ involved in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Har Pmsad Kane and others vs. State of Chhtmisgarh and others (Writ Petition (S.) No.5191 of’2006), dated 3.10.2006. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in the matter of Har Pmsad Kurre and others vs. State 0f Chham‘sgarh and others (Supra). The petitioner is allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from gfi l l. e “,4. today t0 respmdent No.1, raisiag all his grievances and, in tum; respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner Within aperiod of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, wet considering ail the points raised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 3 1—1—2000 passed by the leaned State Adnljinstra‘iive Tribunal in Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and ifthe petitioner stands on the same footings, as the petitioner in the Original Appiication No.1452 of I998, then he be also sanctioned the same pay-scaie and seniority. The Writ peti’iion is accordingly disposed of Wiih the aforesaid direction, subject to verification ofthe facts. No order as to costs 1: Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri: l Judge ’ *