(1) C^'7 03 'ttyws 638 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W^P. (SL No.^6( of 2009 PETITIONER ^' ^jf' 'in )'-'•'. ^-•^w ^•'^ ^^ <lff' . 'A^^ Nagendrainani Tripathi, S/o Late Shri Rajmani Tripathi, aged about 47 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School, Gourela, Block- Gourela, District-BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. rState of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Departnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) T"' 2. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-BUaspur. 3. Block Education OfGcer Gourela, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F_THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA BEILITIONER (p' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petitioii fS) No. 5461 of2009 Petitioner Nagendramaui Tripafhi Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri K. S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Depuly Govt. Advocate for the respondents. » ORDERtOrall (Passed on this 24th day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. 2. 3. 4. Tliakur Learued counsel appearlng for tlie petitioner submits fhat by fhis petition, fhe petitioner is seektag a direction to the respondents to graat him regular pay scale from. the date of his iaitial appoiatment on the post of Assistant Teacher. He further submits fhat the ideatical issue has been decided by fhis Court ia various writ petitions, one ofwhich is W.P.(S) No. 813/2007 (Ram. Kuniar Sahu Vs. State ofChhattisgarh). Leamed counsel appeariiig for the respondents/State subniits that if fhe petitioner inakes a representation to the concemed authority, the saaie m.ay be considered and decided iu the Ught of the judgnient and order passed by this Court iu identical cases, after scrutiaizmg the factual aad legal position. It is ordered accordingly. The . petitioner inay niake a representation to the concemed authority along wifh a copy of this order, within a period of fhree weeks froin today, which inay be considered and decided wifhin a further period of four weeks froia tibie date ofreceipt ofthe representation. In view of the foregoiag, fhe writ petition staads disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge