^ ^ Cfr i/^<7^' ^M^^l ^ ^^^,^ ffi)?i!ii^ti: Btw':y: IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.^^ 1:^/2010 ^' PETITIONER: ^ ^•:^ 'k^<y ..-••:"'.My .^"^' ..^" .vcl ^ Govind Das Chandra S/o Bodhi Ram Chandra aged about 60 years, Upper Division Teacher, Goyernment Middle School, Datoud Block-Jaijaipur Disft. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^' VERSUS RESPONDBNTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: - Secretary, Department ofEducation Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block-Jaijaipur Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3342/2010 Govind Das Chandra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others nONOFINDIA Present: - Shri Ashwani Shukla, counsel for the petitionew. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 09th July, 2010) The petitionerwas injtially appomted as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.1(X)/-. After coniptetion ofthetr probation period, he was granted regular pay scateofRs.169-300/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted ttiat the issue involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of inltial appointment or after compl^on of probation period. 3. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madh^i Prad^h State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yaflu and 56 Others v. State ofM.P. & others), wherein tt was held Iftat the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scate wth effect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon'bte Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court upholding the decisfon of th®Tribunal to Vhe effect that ttie Teachers/Assistant Teawhers are entitled to regular pay scate from ttie date of injtial appointment. B ^y^. ^>^^ '^ ^' £ "^ ^ \.v<^ "^^^'^ 13 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner furttier ^ibmite that this Court, white considering the same issue in Amar Saf Ram & Ofhws v. Sftrf®of ChhaWsgarh & Othefs. W.P.(S).No.4725/2006. by order dated 01-09-2006, allowed the petitionere to make a representation wNtfiin a period of ten days. raising all the grievances. 5. Accordjngly, ttie petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation rajsing all grievances in light of the aforestated judgment and the circular dated 13-01-2009 (Annexure P-2) and in tum, the concemed respondent is directed to decide ttie representation, if any, in accordance witii law, on fts own merits, within a period of ejght weelcs from ttie date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. 6. Invjewoftheforegoing.thjspetitfonisdisposedof. No order as to coste. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane