^6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) o.^^ WRIT PETITION (Sl N0 /2009. PETITIONER: ^- ^ ^l ^ ^£^'' ^A-^"^ ..."•">&• ^^9"" Respondents Susanna Bhagat, wife of B.R.Bhagat, aged about 46 years, Asst. Teacher, Primaiy School Charkhapara, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7346 of 2009 Petitioner Susanna Bhagat Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh aad ofhers (Wnt Petitiou under Aiticle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnitiotri J.) ShrL C. Jayaat K. Rao, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Shri Yashwaat Sin.gh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for tlie State/respondents. O R D E RfOrall (Passed on tihis 16th day ofDeceniber, 2009) Heard. 1, Leanied couusel appearmg for fhe petitioner siibinits fhat the petitioner was appoiated as Assistant Teacher ou a fixed pay of Rs. 300/-. After coinpletion of probation period, tlie petitioner was graated regular pay scale. 2. Leamed counsel fzirther submits tliat fhe issue iavolved ia ftie case is asto whefher fhe petitioner is entifled to regular pay scale wifh effect frora fhe date of iaitial appointinent or after conipletion ofprobation period. 3, The issue iiivolved, hereia, was considered by fhe Madhya Pradesh State Adiaiaistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A,No. 2745/89 (Madhukaat Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), whereia it was held that fhe simUarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of iaitial appointtnent. The saatter was taken up to HonT^le Suprerae Court m Special Leave Petition (CivU) No. 6832/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court npholditig the decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect fhat the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entitied to regulai' pay scale froia tlie date of iaitial appointiiient. rs^-: •^^^^ 1 4. 5. 6. — ^- Leanied counsel also submits fhat this Court, whUe considering fhe saine issue in Amar Sai Rami & ofhers Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others <W.P.(S) No. 4725/2006} by oider dated 1.9.2006, allowed fhe petitioners to nxake a representation along witii copy ofthe petition aad aanexures wifhia a period of ten days, raisiag all fheir grievances aad ia tuni tlie conceraed respondent was directed to decide the representation iii aa objective ixiaaner withia a period of 30 days froia fhe date of receipt of the representation. Accordiagly, the petitloner is graiited Uberty to niake a representatiou to flie conceraed aufhority. It is expected that flie representations inay be considered aad decided ni accordaace witli law wifhra a reasonable period, subject to verification offacts. In view of fhe above, tiie petition staads disposed of. No order asto costs. —-——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur ^r'