SINGLE 3mm IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (SI LVRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: Teej Ram Ghritlahare S/o Jhodu Ram Ghritlahare, about 56 years, \WXX .. working as Head Master at égQ)‘ .% i X at Primary School Aamgaon, ¥ Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir-Champa $ £7 (C'GJ RESPONDENTS: / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: - Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) I The District Education Officer, District - Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 3.“ The Brock Education Officer Block— Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir— Champa (09.) 4"“ Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur @3 M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILABPUR WW 3B : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITIHKER DIWAKER W.P.l8[ R0. 5452(2011 Teej Ram Ghritlahare PETITIONER State of C.G. & Others 1P o n'na currluor- ‘ lNDlA, W: Shri Ashwini Shukla, counsel for the peiitionen; Shri Pmveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. ORAL ORDER (15.09.2011). With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heaxd finally. The petiu‘oner was mma’uy appointtd as Assistant Teacher on a med pay of Rs. 150. Attcr completion of his probation period, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169-300. Lcamed counsel for the pctin'oner submits that the abwe issue has been considemd by the Mp. State Adminisuative 1mm, Jabalpur in o.A. No. 2745/89 between Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Stats of M.P. and othcm, whemin it was hold that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale with wect n'om ‘the date of initial-appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eu'ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to mgular pay scale u'om the date of initial appointment. It is further submitted that this Court while considering the same issue in W.P. (S) No. 4725/2006 betweenAmarSaiRam& Others Vs. StateofChhatiiSgwhwvdOthers by order dated 01.09.06 allowed the petitioners to make a representation within a period of ten days, mising all the ”grievances. ” @2 Accordingly the pe1i1ioner is grantnd liberty to make a repmscntau‘on raking all his gievanccs in the light of thc aforesaid judgment and the cixcular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexme P/2), and in turn the concerned respondent is djmcted to decide the mpresentation, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of eight weeks nom the date of receipt of the repmsentation subject to veridcau'on of the facts. In view of the foregoing, this peh'tion is disposed of: No order as to costs. Mum/x” a... ._ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker \ Judge