'__‘ IN THE HON'BLE ‘ " " ‘ "HIGH " ‘”‘COURT ","""_"—————— OF ICHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (s) No. R29 120,11 ¢5 PETITIONER Kw mf. Prema Soni (new Guptq), W/o Ramon Lal Gup’ra, aed abouf ‘45 years, Headmaster GOV’r. Middle’ School, Baspar'a (Tribal Welfare Deparfmem‘), Block— Baikunfhpur‘, Dis‘rricf- Korea (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / : 1. Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh,, Through - The Secre’rar‘y, Tribal Welfare Depar‘rmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur, Dis’rl'. -Raipur (6.6.) Assis’ranf Commissioner, Tribal Welfar B Block ducaon , Officer, Baikun‘rhpur, Dish-Korea (C.G.) Depar’rmenf, aikunl’hpur, DisTf.—Korea (C.G.) R WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Z26 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (s):— As per ‘rhe cause fifle. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT 15!:- As per the cause fifle. Q5 : S g e Eti \ 3a WW, @Wn‘q)’, W“ag? qmmmNPwW‘aw‘é I 200 Wm (WKH) T WR‘I WW v§ Farrir I‘m % aim m l $3.: Hawgm MR, JusTICE ErmiiNKER DIWAKER 134.08.2a1 1 Wwezmr Shri Ani} Singh Rajput, mums} for the pstitioner. r Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. f th€ $tata. § Tbs pm’itioxmr was i 'tiaily appainted as Assistant Teachers 1‘33 the yaar 1973 on a iixed gray of R3. 100-150‘ Afmr \f‘ complstion of their probatio pen'od, he Was graxlted mgular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Lsarned counsel for the peh'tionm” submits that the above issue has bean considared y the MP. State Administiat've Tn'bunal, Jabalpur in GA. N . 2745/89 between Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. St e ofM?. and others, Whersin it was held that the: simiiarly imated teachars are. entiileé i0 rsgular pay scale with e act from the date of initiai appointmant. Th6 matter was an up to the Hon’ble Suprems Court. The appeal was dis issed by the H013’b1e Supreme Court upholding the decisian of the Tribunal to the effect that the 'I‘eachersjAssistaalt Teac .ers are entitled to regular pay scale &om the date of ' ' ‘ial appeintment. It is fw‘ther submitted that this Court Wh e censidering the same issue in WP. (S) No. 4725/2006 betw enAm Sui Ram & Others Vs~ Stme of Chhattisgarh and Others by order dated 01.09.0E allowed the petitioners to ake a representation within a peliod 0f ten days, raising all e grievances. WWW WWW 3a WW, own—s: W “WWm mm (WW - 1. mtfw mm WW petmone is granted liberty to make a répmsentation raising 3&1 his aforemid judgmsnt and the (Annexure P14), and in tum directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance with period of eight weeks from the ition subject to verification of law, on its own merits, withm a date of remipt of the rapmsent: the facts. r , . It is made deaf that. this opinion on tbs merits of tha caSi would be at liberty to decide w accordance with iaW. In View of the forégoing, t1 order as to costs. TF1 209 mam mn‘c‘h‘ v§ foe”: IfmgR $Wm rievances in the light of the circular oated 27.12.2008 the concerned. respondent is court has not expressed any : and the authority concerned 'he representation strictly in ‘gis petiiion is disposed of. No Sd/- Pritinker Diwakal‘ Judge