^ /4 ^Oc^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (W.P. (Sl No. ..^.0<?^...../2011) PETITIONERS ys^^ ^^•^v ^^^^^ Ramsai Ram S/o Bolwa Ram; aged about - 55 year; Working as Head Mastar, Government Primary School Parsagudi; Block Office - Rajpur; Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 2. RESPONDENTS : ^. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block - Rajpur; District - Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. i 's^ l ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON»BLEMR. JUSiKCB PmTIWKBR ©IWAKSR PBTITIONBR W.P.tSI.NO. 5602/2011 Rasnsai Raai versus RB8PONDBNTS State ofC.G. & Others Shri Viplav Shrivastava, coiiasel fbr fhe petitioiier. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L, for fhe State, WRIT PBTITION UKDER ARTICLB 226 OP THB CQNSTITUTOOIf OF IWDIA ORDBR (21.09.2011) The petitioner was iniliaUy appointed as Assistaiit Teacher ^n a fixed pay of Rs. 150 and thereafter fhey werc graated regiilar pay scale on coxnpletion offheir probation peridd, The question of law iavolved hercia is as to whefher tlie petitioner is entiUed to regular pay scale w,e,f fhe date of initial appoiatment or froin fhe date ofcompletion offheir probation period. Counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner as well as for the State jointly subniit fhat fhe facts aad question of law iavolved ia ttie present writ petition are the same as to fhat ia W.P.(S) No. 5976/06 (Sushil Tiwad aad Others v. State Govenimeat of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers) which was allowed vide order dated 07.11,06, Counsel for the petitioner subxmts fhat fhey may be permittcd to file representation beforc fhe competent aufhority and ia tura the authority may be directed to decide the same ia the Ught of fhe abovementioned order passed by tfais Court and the circiilar dated 12& December2006 vide Annexurc P-5. Counsel for fhie St^te has no objection tf t&e petitioner makes any such representation and the same is decided m accordaace with law aad the order passed by fhis Court and also in view of ffae circxilar (Aanexure P-5). In view of ffae above subixdssioii made by fhe counsel for the parties, fhe petition is disposed ofwiffat a direction to the petitioner to make reprcsentation before fhe competent aufhority witihia three weeks from today and ia fhe eventuaMly of makmg any such representation fhe sacae would be decided by fhe concenied authority after consideriag fhe entire facts of fhe case wifhin a period of four monfhs fhiereafter, It is made clear fhat this Coiirt has not expressed aay opmion on merits offhe case aiid fhe aufhority concenied would be at liberty to decide fhe same stricUy ia accordaace wifh law, _ ^ Sd/- pritinker_DWker