°^ 61 »»!. ^ ^^ k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR W.P.ISl N0. ^^ /2011 PETITIONER ^ s}/^^/ ^/^y ^•ov' X^f^ /•" •^ /"' ^ y? , : 1. Smt. Kalyani Dubey W/o Shri Bhupendra Dubey, aged about 52 years, workiag as Lower Division Teacher, Girls Primary School No. 5, Bharkapara, Rajnandgaon, ^ DistrictRajnandgaon. (C.G.) 2. Smt. Deepika Thakur W/o Shri Rakesh Thakur, aged about 50 years, Working as Lower Division Teacher, Govemment Primary School -Sindhi Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon(C.G.) 3. Smt. Shakuntala Singh W/o Late Shri Uttam Singh, aged about 56 years, Govemment Primaiy School No.5, Bharkapara, Rajnandgaon. District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) , 4. Smt. Aasmat Bano W/o Shri Ejajjur Rehman, aged about 56 years, Workiag as Upper Division Teacher, Thakur Pyarelal Govemment nuddle School. Rajnandgaon Distarict Rajnadgaon. (C.G.) VERSUS n'r ^^SE^ RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secreteiry, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiu- (C.G.) 2.. Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon Dista-ict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer. Rajnadgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) :^ 4. Treasury Officer, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ,^^ E.!'^w^^ i'taisis ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No.2719/2011 Smt. Kalyani Dubey and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and ofhers Writ Petition U/A226 of the Constitution of India Present: - Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petitioners. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13th May, 2011) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The petitioners were appointed as Trainee Teacher on a fuced pay. After successfully completing the probation period of 2 years, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in ^^^:'^^&.^'i • BSI 8SI SWII .,..-;:.-?^-. .•3®r [!it;li«li •"":^K^k. ^•^^^.s^ "%'l ^ ^?;^^^r| / 'l'^;-;''^^ O.A.No.2745/89 [Madhukant Yadu and 56 others v. State of M.P. & others), wtierein, it^was held that fhe similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in special Leave, Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said petition was disraissed 'by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointrae'nt. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits fhat this Court, while considering the same issue in Amar Sai Ram 8s Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No.4725/2006] by order dated 01/09/2006, allowed the petitioners to make a representation within a period of ten days, raising all their grievances. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State Govt. has issued an order on 27-12-2008 (Annexure P-5), wherein, it has been ordered that those who have been appointed before 1982 and after 1995 on a fbsed pay, are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment upon successful completion of 2 years period of probation. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation raising all his grievances in light of fhe aforesaid SiWWi^ ''^h,. . ''V .s-S"' '^BSUS*'"1" Tumane judgment and cu-cular dated 27-12-2008 (Annexure P/5), and in turn, the concemed respondent is directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of three months frora the date of receipt of the representation, subject to verification of the facts. 7. In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. - — -.- Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge la .' l;'^'''N^^'^ S3S :^^Ss 1®^SS I:]l