c^ SSi"], ^HI' BEFORE HON'BLE ^^yy' \^ ..-•""''' < ^^-:s^ ...•f'^y""'.. ^•^s^ 0^^"" tf^\^ >.••"' W.P. (S) No.....^>.-??.^.5'.....2011 Ram Kumar Dewangan, S/o Hariram Dewangan, age about 54 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Tamer Para Dhamdha District Durg ^-A-"' The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Departnient, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Durg District Durg C.G. " '^Se'' ^ii ^""'/^ "^'sisSsS't"' XI-HC—78 sn^i 'SR W\4i T[S?T ^ff^?T 8»<qN» -^ '^ ^ST '*fWM^, 'awww, . k3?'^i^.33,S^7// sn^r Tra^ c^fg^?) waim^riOT'Bi^i SB : Hon'bie Shri rvlanindra Mohan Lawyer wats ynri Somkant verma, counsel Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawy Vvith the consent of learned nnaiiy. The petitioner was appointed compieting the probation period of 2 Learned counsel appearing invoived in the case is as to whether: with effect from the date of initial s penoa. The issue invoived herein Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in offiers v. State ofM.P. & offiers), teachers are entitied to regular appointment. The matter was takeq Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. T( Supreme Court, upholding the dec^ Teaohers/'Assistant Teachers are erl initial appointment. Learned counsel appearing Court, while considering the same i^ Chhattisgarh & Others [w.P.(S5 r] allowed the petitioners to make a raising ali their grievances and in p4/ Itie tunn 'w^^fN 'Rp^rf ^* fe^ ^)^i< ^•atfipT sn^i |for the petitioner. for the Siate. bounsei for the parties, the matter is heard in a fixed pay of Rs.100/'-. After successfuily /ears, he was granted reguiar pay scale. for the petitioner submits that the issue the petitioner is entitied to reguiar pay scale ippointment or after compietion of probation considered by the Madhya Pradesh State p.A.No.2745/89 {MacShukant Yadif and 56 Wnerein, it was held that the similarly situated scale with effect from the date of initiai up to the Hon'bie Supreme Court in special said petition was dismissed bythe Hon'bie ision of the Tribunai to the effect that the ititied to regular pay scaie ffom the date of far the petitioners further submits that this isue in Kmar Sai Ram & Others v. Siate of io. 4725/2006] by order dated 01/09/2006, representation within a period of ten days, i, the concerned respondent was directed to '-"% J XI-HC—78 "SSf "41'4l<r)'4, ^Ti1-M''l(o, fs(cll'!-iy LOpCs) 1^0. 333-S/^ •iflT^I q? (c(-fi+ ?i^T ^TT^T'gR iJeepy s^s •'ra^ C^t^ff) 'S^IKIT ^afei sn^n decide the representation in an obj'eofliv/e manner within a period of 30 days from the date of reoeipt ofthe representatio|i. Learned counsei for the petitioifier iurther submits that now the State Govt. pun (Annexure p/5) wherein, it has been cth has issued an order on 5"' January, ordered that those who have been a fixed pay, are entitled to reguiar pay upon successtui completion OT 2 years Accordingly, the petitioner is raising all his grievances, in the light representation, if any, in aocordance v, 'wRmFv 'wrai'? 'fsTzt <r"it<ii ^Taifwair^i ppointed before 1982 and after 1995 on a scale from the date of initial appointment Iperiod of probation. |ranted iiberty to mate a representation ipf the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05/01/2011, and in turn, the conoerijied respondent i's directed to decide ihe ph law, on its own meriis, within a period of three months from the date of reoeipt ^ft'ne representation, subject to venfication or the faots. In view ofthe foregoing, this pet|tion is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge