HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4822 of 2005 Petitioner Swaroop Ram Dhritlahare. Aged 36 yrs. S/o Khorbahara Ram Dhritlahare. Peon, C/o Principa!, Middte Sohool, Pandharbhatta, BiocR Dharsiwan, Dist. - Raipur. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretiary, E5eptt - of Schoof Educafion, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Dkector of Pubtic Instrudaons, Cfo Directorate, Pubiic (nstructi'ons. Raipur. 3. Jolnt Director, Public (nstructions, Raipur. 4. District Education Officer, Shaitendra Nagar, Raipur. WRST PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE OOSTiTUTiON OF JNDJA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justjce Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocato for the pet^oner. Miss Sunita Jajn, Pane! Law/er for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 18th day of April, 20)7) 1. The petstioner has filed thjs petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant reguiar pay scale from the date of initjal appojntment. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court a Setter dated 9.8.2002 (Annexure P/12) wherein the State Government, SchooS Education Department, has already decided to grant regular pay scale to the petitjoner. It appears, despjte cSear decislon of the State Governmentt the respondent No.2 has not granted the relief. Accordingly^ the petitioner was forced to fiie this petition in this Court. 2. It is very unfortunate that the respondents No.2 and 4 have not compljed with the order passed by the State Government and no s^ action has been taken tiH date against the concerned dejjnquent ofRcers.v/ho have failed to djscharge their duties by not comptying with the dsrection contai'ned t'n the tetter dated 9.8.2002. 3. Ths State Govemment is at Siberfry te teke appropriate action asainst the concernsd officers for defaujtand the negii'igence on their part. However, jn view of the cSear and categorical decisjon taken by the State GovemmeRt, as expressed jn the said Setter dated 9.8.2002, the responcients are directed to grant regutar pay scale, accordingSy. and make necessary payments So the petitioner, wlthjn a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Jn vtev/ of the foregosng, this peti^on stands dSsposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge