?' IH THE HX<a CQVSS @F g^BIKKEWaSs ASC «T. w ,e.110. ^$"'3 ^f 3 yi999 3 WS'ISIOSEBi Krl.sbaa Kaat 3>iwari» S/e late Sfcl Pren Ram1'iwarl, Prinary Teaeber,KEHBRI?A viBZftLaxa B.e.p.E., .jranal- pall Korba. Bistfe- R BA .<•..... , • • • ••..'.., -%£SBS- iaSSB0H@ENTS 1. KBHDRTSrA VIBYAIArA SAKg<ffHAS, 18, iBsfel'txafeioaal Aeea, SMaheed Jeefesiagb Marg, Hew-Beltel-16 tbreuA- Ite's eKalmaB. 2. Ass'b'fe.eeanlssioseE.KENBRIX'A V33ffiCABft3E& SAH^aSHS^'&anlBistEafetve c^is^t '^saQrS^ '71^a3^& Sa&gai^^ Segiaiaal 0£flee»S»e.F.»Jabatgua'. KI'EE®N^HBBB AB'BaSLE-226^27 C0HS3'IIBEI@S W":3ESB3C^!8 ' 1 "rT";E^"^;"^~E^^ *-'^^w; ^»^3i^y^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR6 ATBILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH DMSIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI H.L. DATrU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. PETITtONER RESR3NDENTS Writ Petitton No.5343 of 1999 Krishna Kant Tiwari VERSUS Kendrtya Vidyalaya Sangaftan and another. Present: Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petffioner. Shri A.S. Gahanrar, counsel for the respondents. ORALORDER tPassed on 26 February, 2097) The foltowing oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. Primary Schoot teacher is the writ petttioner in this petltton filed underArticle 226 ofthe ConstituUon of India. The grievance made out in this peUUon is in regard to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 341 of 1999. Admittedly, he joined as primary school teacher !n Kendrfya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhion 23-09-1987. IniUatly he was a probationer. Thereafter his employer confirmed his appointment » (2) The petitioner had approached Ihe respondents to fix his pay- scale in accordance wfth the official memorandum issued by the Govemment of India, Departmentof Pereonnel and Training on 07- 08-1989. The same was rejected by fhe employer. ^grieved by ttiat order, he was before the Central Administrative Tribunal. d? 2-- rv (3) In the otficlalmemorandum issued by ttie Govemment of tndia dated 07-08-1989, it is made clear that the official memorandum would be applicable to such employees who joined service en or after 07-08- 1989. In the preserrt case, the psUtioner had joined his service as a Central Government Employee much prior tp the cut off date stated in the official memorandum dated 07-08-1989. (4) At e time of hearing of the petttion, leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cut off date envisaged in the official memorandum is in violation ofttie equallty of principles and therefore te in violation of Article 14 ofthe ConsUtuUon. (5) Rrst and foremost, the peUtioner has not questtoned the virus of the ofRcial memorandum issued by the Central Govemment datod 07- 08-1989. Without challenging the notificatton, the pefltioner cannot be permitted to argue that the cut off date envisaged in the ofRcial memorandum is in violation ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution. (6) Keeping the date of entry of the pefltioner into service and the date of official memorandum which was in existence, in our opinion, rightly the Cenfral Administrat'ive Tribunal has rejected ttie request of the petitioner for fixation of hls pay scale in the light of the official memorandum issued by the Central Govemment dated 07-08-1989, we do .not find any error in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly.*. Sd/- Ouef Jusdce Sd/- V.K. Sbrivatava judge