gH 4A Singks génch ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION NO. 185 /2005 Kishore Kumar Agrawal, son of Late Lakhanlal Agrawal, aged about 4O years, resident of House No. 307, Gaya Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh), working PETITIONER as Assistant Teacher at Government Gaya Bai, Primary, School, Daya Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 01) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As shown in the cause titie. VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Schooi Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) /2. District Education Officer, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) /3. Block Education Officer, Biock — Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) /4. District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa (Chhattisgarh) HIGH COQRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 185 of 2nn§ Kishore Kumar Agrawal. PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. Present : Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.R0y, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER 10RAL§ (Passed on 07 day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, working as Assistant Teacher, claims regular ay scale w.e.f.l 09.03.1998 instead of 17.03.2000, with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, is that on the basis of recommendation made by the selection committee of District Durg, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher Vide order dated 09.03.1998 (Annexure P/II). Thereafter, the petitioner was granted pay scale ofRs. 1200-2040/- by order dated 16.03.1998 (Annexure P/III) in accordance with the terms of appointment on approval by the Committee constituted for grant of regular pay scale to the adhoc Assistant Teachers. The petitioner, thereafter made a representation that he may be granted regular pay scale w.e.f the initial date of appointment. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 2200/2003 before this Court. This ,Wmder dated 09.08.2004 (Annexure P/V), granted liberty to the W r p petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities and in turn, the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the District Education Officer, Durg on 13.09.2004‘ The same was rejected by the District Education Officer, Durg on 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/VI). Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in service in the year 1981-82 and thereafter, he was removed from service. The petitioner has been appointed on 09.03.1988 for a period of two years on ad hoc basis and the petitioner has completed his probation satisfactorily. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to regularization wef. the initial date of his appointment andregular pay scale accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis for a period of two years. On. completion of two years satisfactorily, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 1200—2040. The petitioner cannot claim regularization and regular pay scale w.e.f. the initial date of appointment as appointment of the petitioner and grant of regular pay scale was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order. The terms and conditions of the appointment order was very clear and unambiguous. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, the petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition being WP. No. 2200/2003 seeking for the same relief for grant of regular service benefits w.e.f. 09.03.1998 instead of 17.03.2000, with \all consequential benefits. The said petition was disposed of granting liberty , . \ \ “Fri ‘ to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities. In turn, the respondents were directed to consider and decide the same within a period of three months. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner made a representation on 13.09.2004 which is evident from the communication dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/VI) whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has not challenged the said communication in this writ petition and the relief sought for in the present petition, has already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P. No. 2200/2003. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On careful consideration, it is found that the instant petition has been filed for the same relief which was sought for in W.P. No. 2200/2003. The petitioner has not impugned the order dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/VI) passed in his representation dated 13.09.2004, pursuant to the observations made in W.P. No. 2200/2003. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of prayer sought for in this petition as the communication dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/VI) _ it appears, has been accepted by the petitioner as the same is not under challenge in this petition. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the communication dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/VI), if so advised. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Amit 10. There shall be no order asto costs. .. 3d]- Saash K. Agnihotri Judge Ag