c^ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION fS) N0.^-sr L( 9/2011. PETmONER: ^^ ^.^^ yo^ :^ ^ ^•y/ '^:/ <^' Respondents ^tAM^ / •^sr/ (S.R. l'^. v'^. '''*ii» ^^ ^ T»^> z'" Yadram Nayak, son of Padumlal Nayak, aged about 4&years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Surri, Block Pussour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 'versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, District Raigarh, Chhatti^g^rh. 3. Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IJNdT «»*lich ^^ ^WW^, ^>xl|-M<|<o, [c<dl-H^< —......?o..:.£.-.&.)..t^..-..5?M^(J lTst200 W^TT TR^ (Ti^rf351^T) 31^^ R^icb ^mr3?n^r ^HW 'i^HW^rft^ 3iTT^T SB: Hon'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava* J. 11-05-2011 Shri CJ.K.Rao, counsei forthejpetitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer fo| With the consent of learned cotinsel for finally. The petitioner was appointed Rs.300/-. After successfully comple^ was granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel appearing f(| involved in the case is as to whethert scale with effect from the date of ir^itial probation period. The Sssue involved herein State Administrative Tribunal, jabaipt ancf 56 others v. State of M.P. 4 simiiarly situated teachers are entiti^d the date of initial appointment. Supreme Court in special Leave Petii(on was dismissed by the Hon'bie Supr^ne Tribunal to the effect that the Tegichers/Assistant regular pay scale from the date of init|al Learned counsei appearing for Court, while considering the same is^ ofChhaWsgarh & Others [W.P.(S) N<|>. ftheState. tfhe parties, the matter Ss heard ^s Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay of |ng the probation period of 2 years, he 4r ttie petitioner submite that the 'issue the petitioner is entitted to regular pay ir^itial appointment or after completion of w4s Thb CM^fci<<ii ^[^i ^ i^T^t <r^i^i< ^3<fim37T^T considered by the Madlhya Pradesh }ir in O.A.N0.274S/88 (Ma^uAwK yaofu otihers), wherein, it was hetd that the ^d to reguiar pay scaie wtth effect from matter was taken up to the Horfbie (Civil) No.6892/93. The said petitton Court, uphoiding the decision of the Teachers are entitled to appointment. jthe petitioner further submits that this >ue in Amar Sai Rsm & Others v. State ^.4725/20061 by order dated 01/09/2006. [• ^ssss"-' XI-HC—78 HI*«?ITia)<n^» "3~sr ^ww^, yxll^<l<o, [®!dl-y^< to-f.(^)v^.^^^i »>*11<ft u 200 3^1 TWF (T^rf331^T) 3^T ^T f<^i<4» WT 3?n^r ^qN? ^- Deeptt ^HW^cT 3TT^T <^<^<— allowed ttie petitioners to make a re| CM^(<n<iii TTR^f "^ feT3t <r^i^i< ^tT3tfW3:n^T ^resentation within a period of ten days, raising ail their grievances. Learned counsel for the petiti^ner further submits that now the State Govt. has issued an order on 5th Jsjnuary, 2011 (Annexure P-2) wherein, it has been ordered ttiat those who ha^e been appointed before 1^2 and after 1995 on 9 fjxed pay, are entitled to tegular payscate from the date of initial appointment upon successful compl^ion of 2 years period of probation. Accordingly, the petitioner <s ^ranted iiberty to make a representatjon raising all his grievances. in light <ff the aforesaid judgment and circulars dated 13.01.2009 & order dated 5.1 concerned respondent is directed t(> decide the representation, if any, in accordance virith law, on its own merfts, within a perjod of three months from the date of receipt ofthe representatil In view of the foregoing, this costs. .2011 (Annexure P/2), and in turn, the >n, subject to verificatton of the facts. petition is dispc^ed of. No order as to Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge