‘\ dam; BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARHI W.P. ts) No.35! 2~of 2011 PETITIONER : /" Kompal Tirky, S/o L_ate Shri [\Wonqw \\ /: ‘ years, Mohan R/o Tirky, Village aged ‘ + post about Sevari, 51 é? “,y'\ ..”.-’ “\04/ \p é. 26x“ Tahsil Rajpur, Distt.—Surguja ’g (C.G.) VERSUS RESP /1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. ,Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) , 2. District Education Officer, surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) , 3. District Education Officer, Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ONDENTS mmw®w3mlga 200 3mm (Wu) WWW ammm mmm m mm wm a? aimm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 04-07-2011 Shri Viplaw Shrivastava, couns forthe petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawy rfor the State. With the consent of learned c unsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Learned counsel appearing fr the petitioner submits that the issue involved in ghe case is as to whether, t e petitioner is entitled to reguiar pay scale with effect from the date of initial ap ointment or after completion of probation period. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State» Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others v. State ofM.P. & others), w erein, it was held that the similariy situated teachers are entitled to reguiar pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken p to the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. Th said petition was dismissed bythe Hon‘bie Supreme Court, upholding the decis n of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are ent‘ led to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment, Learned counsel appearing for e petitioner further submits that this Court, i while considering the same issue i Amer Sai Ram & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [VV.P.(S) N 4725f2006] by order dated 01/09/2006, , , * allowed the petitioners to make a r presentation within a period of ten days, ‘ raising ali their grievances and in turn the concerned respondent was directed to decide the representation in an object e manner within a period of 3O days from the date of receipt of the representatio . WW’ WW, Wax boPgsyAs‘ 337%)! 200 Wm m m (Wm mmam 3,. Q Learned counsei for the petitione has issued an order on 5‘“ January, 2 ordered that those who have been ap Wed pay, are entitied to regular pay 1 upon successful completion of 2 years p Accordingly, the petitioner is gra all his grievances, ln the light of tr 05/01/2011Kand in turn, the concernl representation, if any, in accordance wi h three months from the date of receipt o of the facts. ln view of foregoing, this oetition ,W WWW ammm mm f€§m %a’f?man%¥1 Baa-pi} r further submits that now the State Govt, O11 (Annexure P/5) wherein, it has been Jointed before 1982 and after 1:395 on a scale from the date of initial appointment eriod of probation. wted liberty to make representation raising e aforesaid judgment and order dated ad respondent is directed to decide the law, on its own merits, within a period of the representation, subject to verification s finally disposed 9i .,,.,,,.....,. / ..