( ”) ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. ”5‘0 ‘3 /2004 : 1. Kamlesh Kumar S/o. Late Khubiram Banchhor, aged about 39 years, resident of Village MohBhatta Post Jamgaon R Dist (C G ) PETITIONERS “\k €\\ h! 2 :11 Late Kumar Ramnarayan Mandarly: Mandanya S/o aged years res1dent 0 V111age& Post Pahandor Dlst Durg (C G) 3. Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Onkar Prasad , aged 34 years, resident of Village Pandar Post Gujra Dist. Durg (C.G.)l 4. Tejram Kamdiya S/o Late Mannulal Kamdiya. aged about 3lyears r/o Village Chhanta Post Devada Dist. Durg (C.G.) 5. Rekharaj S/o Late Prakashwan Sahu , aged 40 years, resident of Village & Post TeliGundara Tah Patan Dist Durg (0G,). 6.Doman Singh S/o Late Phakira Singh Verma aged about 35 R/o Village Aunser Post Ranitarai Tah Patan Dist. Durg (C.G.) 7. Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Vikram Singh Chakradhar aged about 26 years, r/o Village Khundmudee Post jheet Tah Patan Dist. — Durg (C.G.),. 8. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Chiranjeevlal Chandraker aged about 30 R/.o Village Post Jamgaon M. Tah- Patan Dist. Durg . (C.G.) 9 Navneet Kumar S/o Late Panchuram Prajapati aged about 30 Village Bailahari Tah Patan Dist. Durg VERSUS . The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Public Instruction Mauralay, D.K.S. Building Raipur (C.G.), RESPONDENTS t _.w,,,r&i.w.g ® .r’ X \ . gv The Director, ?ublic Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG‘) 3. The District Education Officer, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.). 4. The Chief Education Officer Janpad Panchayat, Patan Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (C‘Gi), 5. The Block Education Officer, Patan , District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. fit XI—HC—7 8 3mm $ W'ar ' anésn W k7 Hm WW, @Fa?w., WW3 w 'V‘ $H°3 WW mzmq mma? (WEI) mm f§WW WWam $eifmm . . 28I01I2005: - Shri Arun Kochar learned coun:sei for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Adv., State/respondents, on advance copy. Heard on LA. No.7232 of 2004! which is an appiication for urgent hearing. The matter is taken up on Board. LA. No.7840 of 2004 stands disposed of. for the Heard . The petitioners have tiled this aetition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize their services on regular pay scale of Rs.4,000l- to Rs.6,000/- which acc‘o ing to the petitioners are the pay scale admissible in case of Assistant eachers. Learned counsel appearing or the petitioners submits that initially, the petitioners were appoin d on compassionate ground as they were dependants of the pers ns working in the government services. initial orders of appointment have been filed as Annexure-P/1 at page 9 and Annexure-P/Z at page i10. These orders are of the year 1999. Later on, by an order dated 31/01/2004 regular orders were issued to them in the regular pay scale of Rs.800-20-1200 for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-'lll. This com on order has been issued under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panc ayat Shksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha t E Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1997. The coitention ’of the learned counsel for E l i / / / XI-HC 78 3E? Emym,Wra 4???) Wvfmgm the petitioner is that appointments of t e petitioners have been made on a low pay scaie and the petitioners sh uld have been given a pay scale of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. This cont ntion seems to be misconceived 'on the face of the contents of the document namely order dated 31/01/2004 (Annexure-P/1). This o er has been issued under the instructions of the Government Refer ng Specific Rules and the scale of pay has also been specified which is shown to be admissible for the post on which the petitioners are t ken into services. When the petitioners have joined on a particula post which specifies a particular scale of pay, there are no grounds av ilabie with the petitioners to ciaim a higher pay scale on the same postf r which they are getting specified pay in accordance with law. in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners were ap ointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill on the specified pay dmissible for the said post and they cannot claim a higher pay scale then the pay scaie admissibie in ' their cases. The petitioners have o cause of action for the relief claimed in the petition. The petition is idismissed summarily. t.MWmWM___wmw,wmw aWWCWa) amiaw wwmm Emaawmm ‘1- emfwz'h w—I l¢?‘%If:c:€mW A $mm ‘cx