^ ~, n u- BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHt W.P. (Sl No. .•r o of2011 PETITIONERS ^••' ^%?/ ,"^w C7 ,'-'^.<^/ ^//s^ ^£^~ ^s''i'v/ ^/ ^' RESPONDENTS fy 1.' Sukhram S/o Make Ram, aged about 48 years, R/o Village- Rajpur, Post-Raipur, Distt. / Surguja (C.G.) 2. Itwari Lal Sakya S/o Chokheram, aged about 50 years, R/o Sattipara, Ambikapur, Distt. , Surguja (C.G.) 3. Ropan Ram S/o Bhikhu Rain, aged about 47 years, R/o Village+Post Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 4. Surendra Ram S/o Jang Sai Rarn, aged about 49 years, R/o Village+Post Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) / 3. Block Education Officer, Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) •/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFJTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ,^-"""°-'!^, .s-i'*" ^y^. if * 'l-i^. "-""^^ 3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARM AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) f^f ^ PEUTIONERS Sukhram and others VER5U; RESPONDENTS State of Chhattlsaarh and others Shri J. P, Shuklg, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. coNsrrruTzoN OF INDU (21.07.201&) iatly appointad as Assistapt pay of Rs. 150 and thereafter,jU»efwere granted regular pay scale on completion of their probation 2. The question of law involved herein is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of tiat appointment or from the date of comptetion of their 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitloners as weti as for the State Jointly submit that the facts and question of law invotved in the present writ petition are the same as to that of in W.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (Sush'il Tiwari and others v. State Government of Chhattisgarh & others) which was atlowed vlde order dated 07.11.2006. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be permitted to file representatlon before the competsnt authority and in turn the authority may be directed to d@dd@ ,.-^^et9^,,. '*] the same in the light of the above mentioned order passed by this Court and the drcular dated l2tn December, 2006 vide annexure P-5, 5. Learned State counsel has no objection if the petittoners make any such representation and the same is decided in accordance with taw and the order passed by this Court and also in view of the circular (Annexure P-5). 6. In view of the above submisslon made by the counsel for the parties, the petition Is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make representation before the competent authority within three weeks from today and in the eventuality of making any such representation the same would be decided by the concerned authority after considering the entire facts ofthe case wtthin a period offour months thereafter. 7. It is macte ctear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of ttie case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representatlon strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge