-,^y<4V^ ,.. ^.^'' •^ws W.P. ,201 Ganesh Kumar Chandele S/o Shri Janak Lal Chandele Aged 53 Years, Upper Division Teacher Middle School Ninawa Block Bemetara District Durg (C.G) The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bemetara District Durg ( C.G.) ^ TS? -^ffq'teTzr, ^flwre', 1%i^[T?ry ^^...^'l^.^.n. ®nt"3:i'f?^ OTIW^TnTO^i' TCiiw^tefsn^E ^RfePfrl•W^^ ^S^S Ti^K ^? sffin s-"?? SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J, 11-08-2011 Shri Somkant verma, counsei ifor the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panei Lawlfer for the State. 'with the consent of learned [counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. The petitioner was initially apfiointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100/- in the year 1976. After su^cessfutiy compieting the probation period, he was granted regular pay scaie of Rs.p 69-300/-. Learned counsei appearing W Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur inj ornere v. State of M.P. & others),^ the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether, the cjetitioner is entitied to reguiar pay scaie with effect from ihe date of initial appointitient or after completion of probation period. The issue invoived herein w^s considered bv the Madhya Pradesh State O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 wherein, it was heid that the similariy situated teachers are entitled to regular p^yffscaie with effect from the date of initiai appointment. The matter was takef) up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in special Leave Petition (Civil') No.6892/93. Supreme Court, upholding the de Ehe said petition was dismissed bv the Hon'ble tision of the Tribunal to the efrect that the Chhattisgarh & OSwrs p/V.P.iS) ailowed the petitioners to make a re Teachers/'Assistant Teachers are e^titled to regular pay scale from the date of inilia! appointment. Learned counsei appearing f(>r the petitioner further submits that this Court, whiie considerina the same issu^ in Amar Sai Ram & Others v. Sfafe of No.4725/2006] by order dated 01/09/2006, sresentation within a period often days, raising maOii^-teipmsir, i 'Sll40—2/2ttt1—t ,50,000. "»"'i"'i '1 :f 'S^ ^WivW, '^^PTS, ..!'O.JO(5^.VL?..:..^.-(>:0/-'I ^^..............^....^»............................ w(' '^i wyv Deepli ?- "qm?i}^''''"S-?fs ^- sSm e-"r all their grievances and in turn, the cjsncerned respondent was directed to decide the representation in an objective ma|iner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt orthe representation. Accordingly, the petitioner is ^anted iiberty to make representation raising alt his grievance, in the light of fie aforesaid judgment and circular dated 05/01/2011, and in turn, the concejrned respondent is directed to decide t'ne representation, if any, in accordance Swith law, on its own merits, within a period of three months from the date of receip|t of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. In view of the foregoing, this p4tition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Manindra Mohaii Shrivastava Judge