§ sLE NcH INITHE‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'TlséARH AT BILASPUR 1' \w.P.(S)No. 3H»! oiFzom.‘ I i _ / ETITIONER : Smt. Manju Shukla, W/o. Vlate Shri Rakésh Kumar Shukla, aged about 4O years, R/o. Hamil) Ganjpéra, Jagdalpur, District—Baktar C. . VERSUS / RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Education School Department, D.K.‘S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) , 2. District Education£0fiicen Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) f 3. Treasury Officer, ' Treasury Account and Pension, Jagdgalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) » I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DD sma BE P ( G) q\ I % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAQH BILASPUR } ‘ Smgle Bench Hon ble Shn Manmclra ohan Shrwastava, .J. . t < WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA Present. - Shn Somkant Verma counsel forthe petitioner f Shrl Bhaskar Payashl Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2““ July, 2010) With the consent of the parties the matter Is taken up for hearing Fnaily 2. The petltroner was appomted as Assrstant Teacher on a f‘xed pay of I Rs 100l-r Aher completion 0f her probation she was granted reguiar pay scale 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits. that the Issue i ‘vinvolvedi in the case is as to Whether the petitie'ier’is entitled to regular pay I r scale With effect from the date of Initial appomtment or after completion of i probation penod 4. The Issue mvolved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State i Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others V. State cf MP. & athers). wherein it was heid that the simiiarly I situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of i initial appointment. The-matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by 7 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal‘to the effect I at the TeacherslAssistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the f date of initial appointment. s.‘ \ h ‘ ‘ i ‘ WRIT PETIT!0N (S) N031 8112010 ‘ PETITIGNE , Smt. Manju Shukla Versus § RESPONDE NTS’ State of Chhattis$arh and others 5. Leameg! coun$el appearing for the pe’titionér further submits that this Court, while ébnsidering the same issue in Amer S' iRam & Others v. State of Chhattisgérh & Others (W.P.(S) No.4725/2006) by Order dated 01/09/2006, allowed the pietitieners to make a representation within a period of ten days. raising all their'grievances. 6. Accordihgly, the petitioner is granted iiberty to make a representation raising ail her hrievanoe in light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 13-01-200é (Agnnexure Pi) and in‘ turn. the concerned respondent is directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. subject to verification of the facts. 7. ' In View: of the foregoing, this petition is disposed off. f\( No order , as to cots. s - lanina Moha Shrivastava judge v r ‘’ ,«—~~\ Tumane VF {tl’dr ft ' 5d '