cy^ ^ W.P. 35^3 .2011 -5^^ y'>i/ .f * ~ / *' ^ ^ (^/^/ w ^^y <??«^v 1 Anjor Singh Dadsena s/o Samliye Pyare Dadsena Aged about 53 years Priniary School Mohtara Block Bemetara District Durg (C.G) 2 GajnooRam Sahu s/o Samaylal Sahu Aged about. 50 years Government Middle School Nari District Dun ^"- ..' „ v)< . L 3 Lalita Verm.a'^/o Bharat lal 51 years GQV( Anandgaon Bhatapara Block Berla District Durg (C.< / The State Govt. of Chhattishgarh, Through - The Secretary, School Education Deparfaiient, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) District Education Officer, Qepie^ Bttt^ District Durg C.G. ~^Tas%,. f £ 1».. Sfc -!^ ^^^ .•fc. s^f w Wt* '^T 3n^f sp*li<ft ~TS? •^WWi, •&T\iWW, '/&) t^o, &%%2)/n 3I^?I 'f^; ('yf-l'l'i?) TCTOR'Hftd 311^1 sB : Hon'bie Shri fvianindra Mohstn Shrivastava. J. La\(yer 28-OS-2011 Shri Somkant Verma. couns^l Shri N. Naha Roy, Panei Lav^ With the consent of learned tinaily. ine petrtioners were appqi successfuily completing the probatiit pay scaie. Learnea counsei appeanng involved in the oase is as to whetll scale with efrect from the date ({ probation penod. The issue involved herein Administrative Tribunai, jabalpur 's) others v. State ofM.P. s others)\ teacners are entitied to reguiar appointment. The matter was take|i Leave Peiition (Civil) No. 6892/93. Supreme Court, uphoiding the ddp Teachers/Assistant Teaohers are initiai appointment. Learned counsei appearingl Court, while considering the same Chhaitisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) ailowed the petitioners to make a| raising ail their grievances and in "%1^f?raN i?Tq?Tt Tf fs11?t <P=qt^,l< ^siRwsii^i ror tne petitioners. Tor the State. counsel for the parties, the matter is heard !inted on a fixed pay of Rs.1,200/-. After ^n period of 2 years, they were granted reguiar for the petitioners submits that the issue ter, the petitionere are entitled to reguiar pay ?f initiat appointment or atter oompletion of wjas considered by the Madhya Pradesh State O.A.No.2745/89 (madhuKant Yadu and 56 wherein, it was held that the simiiarly situated soale with effect from the date of initial up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in speoial fhe said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble ;ision of the Tribunal to the effeot that the ^ntitled to regular pay scale from ihe date of for the petitioners further submlts that this fssue in Amar Sai Ram & Others v. Staie af No. 4725/20061 by order dated 01/09/2006, representation within a period of ten days, 1, the conoerned respondent was directed to p^iy tUrn --UUt«».L> -i0'fS> XI-HC—78 311^1 W k-U* "^TT 3n^?T «i*iiq) ueypu "3'^ -^ww^, •9-^wiQ, [®i<ni<-iy,< -_ ....tQ.P{^l^^.-.3..3^33/_L' SII^T T5RT (tc<I^«<<tiET) (•wiw ^lf??i an^T ^ flay decide t'ne representation in an obj) the date of receipt ofthe represent^f Learned counset for the petitj has issued an order on 5 Januarjy ordered that those who have beerl fixed pay, are entitied to reguiar upon suocessful compietion of 2 ye^ Accordingly, the petitioners raising aii their grievances, in ligh| 05/01/2011, and in turn, t'ne con4 representation, IT any, in aocordanc^ three months from the date of recei OT the iacts. in view ot tne Toregoing, this ^n^raN ^Tm?ff "^* 1^'c3t <R>i'i^i< ^sfRnsn^i sctive manner within a period of 30 davs from tion. loners further submits that now the State Uovt. 2011 (Annexure P/6) wherein, it has been appointed before 1982 and after 1995 on a soale from the date of initial appoinfrnent irs period of probation. are granted iiberty to make a representation t of the aforesaid judgment and order dated ;erned respondent is directed to decide the i with law, on its own merits, within a period OT pt of the representation, subject to verification petition is aisposed OT. Sd/- .. ,. ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge u