wkw w.P. gS) No. §§§§§ (2010 r Dilip Kumar / . BILASPUR PETITIONER: Chaturvedi S / o Sahib Lal Chaturvedi aged about 49 years, presently working as Assistant Block Education fficer Block— Navvagarh Distt. Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPNTS: ONDE /1(r State of Chhattisgarh Through: — Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Block Education Officer Block- Nawagarh Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As .per cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: INDIA x As per cause title. IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT O H H'EGH COURT OF CHHATTI5QARH AT glLASPUR Single Bench : Hen‘b!e_ Mr. Jusfi‘ce Prifmker- wwaker' Wri? Pamw £5) No. 5893 of 20m Mr, Ashwani Shukkx, ‘counsei for fhe pefh‘icmen Mr. Vaibhav éoverdhm, PL for we Sfafe. WRIT PETITIGN UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CGNSTITUTION OF Eg’IDI:% G § D E R {0&203016} The peTifioner was appaim‘ed as Assi'smm‘ Teacher 0n a fixed pay of Rs.i50/~. Af‘fer‘ comp€eTion of f‘neir pmba'mn period; fhey were gmmed reguiar" pay sca$e of i69—3QGL. 2. Learned counse} appearing for Thé pefi?ioner-s “Hm? The issue invoived in The case is as To whefher, ”the peiiiioners are enii’ried To regular pay scale wi‘rh effec? from ihe dm‘e of iiiiiicxi appoim‘mem or offer compieiion of proba’rion period. 3. The issue invoived herein was considered by ihe Madhyo Pradesh Sm‘ie Adminisfr'm‘ive‘ Tribunai, Jabaipur' in 0A. No‘2745/89 (Madhukom‘ yadu and 56 o’rhers v. S’ro‘re of MP. <3 ofher‘s), wherein ii was heid ihoi ihe simiiariy sifum‘ed Teacher's are enii‘ried fa reguior' pay scaie wi’r'n effeci’ from 'H'ie 'daie of inifiai appoim‘men‘r. The ma‘i’rer was iaken up To The Hon’bie Supreme Cour? in Specie! Leave Pefi'rion (Civii) No.6892/93. The said peii‘iion was dismissed by ‘ihe Hon’bie Supreme Cour? upholding ihedecision of The Tribunoi i0 ihe effecf tho? ihe Teacher‘s/Assisfan’r Teachers are eni'ii‘ied To ‘ {K reguiar' pay scale from The dare of ini‘iiai appoihimenf. i PETITIONEQ Dim) Kumar Cha‘rur‘vedé Versus REsPONDENTS Sfa’re 0f Chhaffisgcwh and NC) 4. Learnea' counsei appearing for fhe peTifioners fur‘fher‘ submi‘rs fha‘? ’rhis Court while considering The same issue in Amer Sci Ram & ofher‘s v. Sfcd‘e of Chha‘h‘isgarh & a‘rhers (WP. (S) No.4725/2006) by order dafed 01/09/2006, aiiowed me peti‘rioners ‘i'o make a represen‘raficn within a periad af fen days raising aii Thek‘ grievances. 5. Accerdingky, 'fhe pe'HTioner is granfed iiberTy f0 make represem'm‘ion raising aii his grievance in “the iigh‘f of ‘ihe aforesaid judgment and The circular daied 13/01/2009 (Annexure P/2) and in ‘i'urn, The concerned respondeni‘ is direcTed i0 decide ihe represenia‘iion, if any, in accordance wi‘rh law, on i'i's own meri’rs, wifhin a period of 8 weeks from The dm‘e of receip‘i of ihe represeni'aiion subjeci To verificaiion of The facis. 6. In view of ihe foregoing, The pe‘fi‘rion is disposed of. No order as To cosfs. ~ Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker ' Judge