^/s^^ ",^^^ '% XI-HC—78 ^: '3~^[ ^ii^j^^ ^flWTS, f^<nj^^< WH<flr ^hNi<^» •^200 3T?^T "^T ftFrN? 7T^T W^T ^IW 1 3TI^TTT?^ (1(^f3^^) ^TTW^fin^fT^r ^<4(d^'< WR^f ^f "ft^t Tf^?R ^'•3fRW3:n^T W.P. tSI No.777/2009 PBTITIONBR B3BSPONDBNTS Vs 1. 2. 3. Raipi^ The Chhaj The Jaiyg neshwar Prasad Dhriflahre, S/o Late Dular Sai, aged about 63 years, d Lecturer Goverainent Boys Higher daiy School, Baradwar, Block- Bhuwb Shri Retu^i Seco4 Baai^idili, Distt, Jaajgir-Chaaipa (CG), R/o Distt.j Statel Educ^tion Mantralaya, DKS . Bhawaa, ViUage- Dhafhad, Tahsil-Jaijaipur, Jaajgir-Champa (CG) of Chhattisgarh, through -Secretary r, Distt. Raipur (CG) Director PubUc Instaructions :tisgarh Goverament, Raipur- (CG) Distdct Education OfHcer, Distt, Lr Champa (CG) (Petition U/A 2^6 ofConstitution oflndia) Siafide Bench; Hon9ble Mr«Jiistice Dhireadra Mishra 06.02.2009 Shri A.S, Rajput, couns^l for the petitioner. Siat. Sinita Ghai, Panel (Lawyer for fhe State. Heard, The case offhe petition}sr is that, he was appomted on fhe post of Assistaat Teacher m the ye^r 1964. Thereafter, he was appointed as Upper Division Teacher thro^ promoted on the post of Hea4 Rs.5500-175-9000/-. He w^s again promoted on 15.9.1998 on fhe post of Lecturer ia fhe pay-s responsibilities as corapared gh iaterview ui fhe year 1979, He was Master on 4.7,1988 in the pay-scale of •ale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- The post of Lecturer is a Ga^etted/Cla^s-II Post, The Lecturer has grcater to Head Master aad fherefore, he was ':-:'^t ^ ^ ^ XI-HC—78 ^"^r ^!^l^1^/'@TTl<44!<o, t^^TRTy 1fl*i^8 «»*il<=l» -^200 3Tr^I^Tf^TN>' ^T^T ^II^T "^RN' v' 3ff^r'^^(<^f3^T) ^mw^^^n^ —z- entiUed for benefit of 22D of |the Fundaaiental Rules aad he ought to have been allowed additional i|acreraents io. his salary, ShriA.S. Rajput, leanie): case of fhe petitioner is squari passed ia W.P. (S) No.616/0( Sbcxte of Madhya Pradesh counsel for fh.e petitioner submits fhat ^ly covered by the order dated 27.3.2008 ia fhe matter of P.Scxtyetsuxrayesn Vs. Ifsnd others (Annexure P-3). He further subniits fhat he has already n^ade representation for fhe above benefits vide aanexure P-4, howev^ considered, Smt. Sniita Ghai, Pan.el| ^N^N "RTR^ff ^f T^t iPsit^K ^'3tRR3^T flie representation has not been Lawyer appearing for fhe State submits ui case fhe petitioner files fr^sh representation before the concemed aufhority of fhe respondents, this petition, along with copy shall be considered aad d( rcspondents ia fhe terms o{ P.Satyanarayan (supra). In view of fhe above pardes, fhe iastaDLt petitiou is to file fresh representation respondents along with copy ^f this petition ao^d aiinexures, On siich representation beiag made, tHe saiae shaU be considered aad decided |for redressal of his grievaaces raised ia ?f fhis petitiou and aauexures, the same |cided by fhe concemed aufhority of fhe order passed in- fhe inatter of subniission of leamed counsel for fhe ^lisposed ofwifh Uberty to fhe petitioner kfore fhe concenied aiifhority of fhe by fhe concenied aufh.orily of fhe respondents ia tenns of the judgment passed ia fhe matteJr of P.Satyaiiarayan (supra) subject to verification. Dhirendra Mishra Judge