14: a J? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILAsPUR w. p. (S) No. (SWI OF 2009. smGLE Bates-g PETITIONERS : 1. Maheshdhar Diwan, S/o. Shri' Shiv Charandhar Diwan, aged about 55 years, Head Master, Govt. Primary School Mohpur, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) (/7 2. Tijau Ram Darindre, S/o, 'iate Shri Kalyan Singh Darindre, aged about 55 years, U. D. T., R/o. Village Amakeda, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) 3. Smt. Kamla Nagiya, W/o. Shri Gulab Singh Nagiya, aged about. 53 years, R/o. Village Pendrawani, Post. Damkesa, Tahsil Bhanupratap—pur, Distt. Kanker (C.'G.) ..( Smt. Lalita Sahu, W/o. late Shri Pyare Lal Sahu, aged aboutVSO years, Head Master, Govt. Primary Schodl Albelapara, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) /, 5. Ku. Geeta Dutt (Now Smt. Geeta Day), W/o. Shri Sunil Chandra Day, aged about 5O years, Govt. { k RESPONDENTS / 7. / 8. Girls Higher Secondary School Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) / . 6. Surendra Singh Thakur, S/o. late Shri Kanhaiya Singh Thakur, aged about 57 years, Govt. Middle School Kirgapari, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker (c.G.) ' Nand Kumar Sen, S/o. Shri Lalji Sen, aged about 54 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Albeda, Block Kanker, District Kanker (C. G.) Virendra Kumar Verma, S/o. Shri Chinta Ram Verma, aged about 54 years, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Murdongari Block Kanker, Distt, Kanker (C.G.) :1. Fatte Bahadur Singh, S/ o. Shri Ram Adhar Singhk, aged about 51 years, U. D. T., Govt. Middle School Karp, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.f VERSUS State‘of Chhattisgarh, Through : ’l‘he Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.* Bhawan Raipur (C. G.) , 2. The Ass1stant Comm1ss1oner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) {M 3. Block Education Officer, Kanker, /Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker 4.1x Treasury Account & Pension, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 6177 of 2009 Petitioners Maheshdhar Diwan 85 others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. o R D E R(0ra1) Heard. (Passed on this 28th day of October, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs. 100/-. After completion of probation period, the petitioners Were granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the case is asto Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. The issue involved, herein, was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. 8 others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale W.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6832/98.‘ The said petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. _ Learned counsel also submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Amar Sai Ram 85 others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others {W.P.(S) No. 4725/2006} by order dated v ) a ’L/ . 1.9.2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation along with copy of the petition and annexures within a period of ten days, raising all their grievances and in turn the concerned respondent was directed to decide the representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date ‘of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to make separate representations to the concerned authority. It is expected that the representations may be considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable period. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a?