^—— t IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT Oj1 CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. b\^ /2011 PETITIONER: / ^%>^ ^wy"' ^s:.-;'"^.?<ns''''' ^.•-"^•%y" ..-•' .^^^ ^•'^' :-^' ^->v^ ^>-" ^&y .^' RESPONDENTS: /^:^ IV:^3'. Bhanu Pratap Koushik S/o Shri Lekhram Koushik aged about 57 years, presently working as Head Master at Govt. Primary School, Bareli Block- Masturi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: - Secretary, Department ofEducation Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Block Education Officer Block- Masturi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) , 4. Joint Director, Treasury, accounts, pension, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' to HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BELASPUR 8B : HON»BLBSHRI JUSTICB PRITINKER DrWAKBR W.P.iS^WO. 4169/2011 PETITIONER Bhanu Piatap Koushik Versus RESPONDENTS State of C. G. & Others WRIT PBTITION UNDBR JSIITICLE 336/28T orTBBC;OMf£ITiy'TI^L^> INDIA Aoi>ea»aace: Shri Ashwini Shukla, coiinsel tbr the petitioner, Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L. for fhe State. ORALQRDER (01.08.2011) With the consent offhe partles^ the niatter is heaxxl ftnally* The petitioner was iaitially appointed as Assistant Teacher 011 a fixed pay ofRs, 150. After coxapletion ofhis probation periody he was granted regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat fhe above issue has been considered by fhe M.P, Statc Admmistrative Tribuiial/ Jabalpur ia O^A. No. 2745/89 between M<uthufccuntt Yadu and 56 others Ws* State o/M.P. <md others, wherein it was held tfaat fhe similarly situated teachers are eiititled to regular pay scale wifh effect fi-osix the date of initial appointmeAt. Ttie niatter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court upholdmg the decision of fhe Tribunal to the effect fhat the Teachers/AssistantTeacbers are entitled to regular jxiy scale from the date of initial appoiotaient. It is further subixiitted tiliat this Court while considermg fhe same issue in W.P. (8) Ne. 472S/2006 between Anwr Sed JRam <& Ofhers Vs. Stccte of Chhcit sgesrh wid Others by order dated 01,09,06 aUowed fhe petitioners to make a representation witJrio a period often days, raising all fhe grievances, ^ ^iySiWSil r i>.'? i i^ '<<fc ^i^ Accordingly the petitioner is granted Uberty to inake a rcpresentation raisiag all his grievaaces ia the Ught of the aforesaid judgment aad fhe circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P/2), and in tursi fhe conceraed respondent is directed to decide the representation, if aiiy, in accordance with laWy on its own merits, wifhia a period of eight weeks froin ftie date of receipt of the reprcsentatioa subject to verification offhe facts. In view of the foregoing, fhis petitiosi is diaposed of, No oxxler as tD COStS. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge \