% (LP\ 4- IN THE HON'BLE Kt6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR ^ ^•!', •pl'" ^- WRTT PETTTtON (S) N0. S33(/2009 PETTTtONER RESPON&ENTS VERSUS 1. • ^-f ...''"' ^^y^- ^'\ ^\>,!^ ^^" 2. ^"^^^; ,^t"^ rj 4. rrahllad Kumar Sahu, aged about 54 years. Son of Shri Kurso Prasad Sahu, "Lower Division Teacher", 6ovt. Primary School - 3<ewra, Block - Saran9arh, Sarangarh, &istt- Raigarh (C.6.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, bepartment of School Education, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan. Raipur (C.6.) The Director / Commissioner, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Raipur (C.6.) The t5istrict Education Officer, District - Raigarh (C.6.) The Block Education Officer, Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.6.) WRTT PETTTtON UM ^2Z60F THE CONSTTTUTEON OF INDIA v^ te^ HIQH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB SHRI JU8TICB PRITINKER DHBAKBR W.P.fS) MO. 3931/2009 PBTITIONBR Prahllad Kumar Sahu Versus RBSPONDENTS State of C. G. & Others WRIT PETITIOa UNDBR ARTICIA 226 OF THB COIISTITUTIOK OF mptA ApDearance: Shri Roop Naik, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. G.A. for the State. ORALOBDER (29.07.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By way of this petition the petitioner is seeking regular pay scale on the post of Lower Division Teacher. Counsel for the petitioner submits that number of identical petitions have been decided by this Court and the issue involved is a concluded one. He has also referred to one of the orders in W.P. (S) No. 813/2007 (Ram Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattiagarh) in which regular pay scale was p-anted from the date of initial appointment. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that in the Ught of the judgment of this Court the petitioner may make a representation to the authorities concemed and the same would be decided after scrutinizing the faotual and legal position. Thus, it is directed that if the petitioner makes a representation to the authorities concemed within a pcriod of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same shall be decided within a further period of one month from the date of its receipt. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concemed is at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner staicBy in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petiticn is dispoeed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1