wW§3>W $3 6 wm Single Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (S) No ...... T15540...... 2011 / PETITIONER ................. Surendra Kumar Barik, S/ o Shri Kangalu Barik, Aged 49 years U.D.T., Middle School, Chotepatni Basna, District Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1) (The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through — The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. 62% > HKGH EGURT OF {L‘HHAT’I‘E’WEARH AT 31LASPUR SE : H$WE§JE $Hm JU$T§$E MkNXNEJRA‘ MOHAN $3HRIV&ST&VA E.P.§$¥ 3W} 4539i2‘3il PE’X‘KTxwmEg Sm‘muh‘za Kumar Bayik Verm RESPOhmENTE State of (1G. &, Gthem w’r PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLE 22éz22‘7 QF THE ’L‘ONSTITU‘X‘ION 0§f INDIA Ammaxancm Shri Somkant Ve rma, counsd fm" mt: pvtih’oner Smt. Smita Ghai, RL. for me Siam] mspondmns. 0M3; URBER {1 1.08.$®1 1} The, peatitioner was initiallv appaimed m; ’I‘Eacher on a {mad paw 0f Rs. 100. After camplt’a‘ion of probation period» he wasx gzrant’éaci regular pay seals of R’s. 169—1300 Cmmsczl ibr the petitiomsr $ubmits t‘ha? thc i$sued invohritd in me, caSé is as to Whether the patitbnsr is .eniitlnd m regular pav $aak with trfibct from the data of initiai appointmam or after compza‘rion of pmbain‘on psxioci. The issue involvrsd herein was CQnsidarcsi by the. Madiuya Pi‘adwh State Admmims‘ah'vc ’I‘xfibunal, Jahaipm‘ iri 0.2%. NG‘. 32’45/39 (MMhukamt Yadu ami 5a what‘s v. Stata’ 0f MJK & (Mimi’s), Wherain it was hald that the 3milarly $imafm1 machers; am enfifleci t0 mgular gay make with effecr fmm tbs. data of im‘fial aypointmtzm. 'I‘hx: matmr was takun up to the: Hon’ble Supmum Cmlm. ’I‘ha a'ppgal was dismiSz-md bv tha Hon’bk Supreme: Court uyhniding rm: d€ci$iou 0f the Tn'huual to the ttgect that the Ttaachm‘S/AssiStaxlt Teacher's art? cmmed 10 reguiar pav soak {mm the date ofinitial appointmrmt Ccunsg1 far the petitioner furthctr submits that? thiE; (Smut, wh§ka cansiden‘ng tht: same issua in :iimar Smi Ram 8a mhgm “V3. State 0f ChhattisgaWl 6r, Wham, W..i’«(S§ N0“ $72$/2$0&, by onler @ dated 01.09.2006, allowed the petitioners t0 make a representation within a paxiod of ten days, raising ail the gn‘cvances. Accordingly, the petitioner is gmnted libexiy to make a representation raising all the gn'evances in. light of the aforestated judgment and order dated 5. 1.2011 (Annexure Pl 5) and in min, the concerned mspondent is dixected to decide the repmeentaiion, if any, in accordance With law, on its own merits; within a pen‘od of three months from the date of mceipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. 1n view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of, No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge s