‘ 1 IN THE HON’BLEgJIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT w BILASPUR w.P. IS) No.£¢9"5€? /201o S‘Nm-E Emwl ita Ram Yadav .S/o‘ Nilkanth XMWR PETITIONER: aged about 50 years, Upper Division Teacher in Govt. Middle School, Block- Balouda, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Paglchgawa VERSUS 1./ State of Chhattisgarh Through: — Seéretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. K The District Education Officer, ‘ / District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. RESPONDENTS: The Block Education Officer Block‘ Balouda Distt‘. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3? sF-gi?":/7 \ g, , , ‘5‘ ‘ WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i /’/ ” , I i’iGH CURT OF CHHATTIséARHEAT BILA5?UR $ingle Bench : Hcn'ble Mr. Juwice FHTinker‘ Diwaker' Wri‘r Pefih'on g5} No. 6738 of 2010 y " i Mr' Vmod Tekam ccunsel for “the ptfmhaner‘ Mr Sumesh BaJcU Gav? Adveca‘re for The s‘rm‘e WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T i O R D E R (24.11.2010) ‘ ; The pefifioner' was appoim‘ed as Assistan‘r Teacher on a J fixed pay of Rs.150/—. Afferj complefidn of Their proba‘rion periad, fhey were gran‘red regular pay scale of 1‘69—300/—. 2. 1 Learned counse! appearing for fhe pefh‘iohers The? The issue :Woived m The case Is as To whe‘rher The pefmoners are em‘rHedx To reguiar pay scaie wrfh effecf from fne date of inmal appom’rmen‘r or affer complefion of probafion period. 3. The issue mvoived herein was conSidered by fhe Madhya Pradesh Sfafe Adminisfraflve Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukanf Vadu and 56 ofhers v. Sfafe hf MP. & ofhers)‘ wherein if waé heid fha‘r fhe simiiarly sifuafed Teachers are enflfled fa reguiar pay scale wn‘h effecf from fhe dafe of hnmal appomfmenf The ma'H'er was faken up To fhe Hon ble 1 Supreme Courf m SpeCIal Leave Pefmon (Cwxl) No 689a/93 The said pe’rmon was dismissed by fhe Honble Supreme Cour’r upholding The decaswn of The Tribunal To The effecT ThaT The Teachers/AssrsTanT Teachers are enTiTled To regular pay scale from The daTe of mmal appomTmenT l l I T <.\/ LiI O PET‘JinoNER ‘ i Sim RaFn Yadav I v § Versus REéPEONDENTs Sfafe cf Chhaw?‘+isgar'h and o‘rhers‘ The efiTr pidnes furf her I bmlrs a f C h g h same issue'in ’ fh’r his ourt wlle conSIc er'in 'l'e‘ Aliner' m Ram & others v Sfa’re of Chha’r’nsar'h & o‘rher' P S No 4725/2006) by order dar 01/0/2006, aHowe p k pd f én ah’noners to mae a represenfm‘ on; within a erio o f ralsmg a felr mevance L L ppg r earned comse’l aearin fo 5 i ccbr‘dingly, ffhe ‘pe'fi'Tio’ner Israme hbery 0 ma iaforesa‘id udmem‘nnd The “circuar‘r 2009 and I lm fhe concerned resonden’r 1 eresen'm’non 1f any, m accordance wn‘ low‘ (on s ow erns wn‘hm a erlod of 8 weeks from The dcn‘e of recelp‘f of he represen‘rahon subecT To vern‘xco‘hon o The facfo f J f " s In wew cf “(he foregomg, The efn‘aon Is disposed of N rdr ‘' s’r oe as Io cos , I l dlr‘fd 1'0 ealde T . 1 f E i E v f > l i : r f i i l I K I i } § I 4 l V I I f i l ‘ l x f l i 1 f I i 1 I f I K f v I S g s W () ed 9 d s “ h gs A fd T f ke r jg lidaed 27.7. n ece d he r; rp h n n . m p fr 6 g o ’ Pritink‘er iwaker udg fi p s D Je