PETITIO‘NERS :1. HeeramanLaI Chandravanshi son of Shri Ramlal Chandravanshi, Aged about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, Prathmik Shala Bodla. Dist: Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Peer Mohammad S/o La] Mohammad, Aged about 48 yeam, Asst. Teacher, Prathmik Shaia Khirsali, Block Bodia, District Kabirdham (C.G_.) 3. Radheshyamr Rangari S/o Shri Kunjlal Rangari, Aged a‘oout 47 years: Assistant Teacher, Prathmik Shala, Glmnga, Biock Bodia, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESEONDENTS :1. Staie of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rainur, (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Kabirdham (CG) 3 Iock Education OEIcer, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.,) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Eon’ble Shi'i Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6778 of‘ZOGé Shri Ai'vind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 24 day of June, 2009) . The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on a fixed pay of Rs. 3G0f—. After completion of their respective probation period, they were granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale wet. the date of initial appointment or after comptetion of probation period. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaiyur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), wherein it was held that the simiiarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale W.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitioaa (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon‘bie Supreme Coult upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from daie of initiai appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that this eouit, whiie considering the same issue in Amar Sai Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others {WE (S) No. 4725/2606] by order dated 01.09.2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation along with copy of the petition and aimexures within a period often days, raising all their grievances and in tum the concerned respondent was directed to deoide the representation in an objective manner Within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt ofthe representation. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted libeity to make a representation raising all their grievances and in turn, the Concerned respondent is directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, Within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification ofthe facts. 6. In View ofthe foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. H / Sd/- Satish KQAgnihotri Judge ‘ ill Amit 5 l i