's c k • \^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^••' (W.P. (S) No. ....>..fc.y.^>..../2011) PETITIONERS : ^" Bechan Ram S/o ; Bodhan Ram; aged about - 54 year; Working as Head Mastar, Government F<:^^ Primary School Dumarpara; Block <^y^--r'cv.>"" ....*• i^"'" ...••'" Office - Rajpur; Distt. - Surguja .*<\^^/v.:''* .^' . \ (C.G.) ^'^ ..^ y^--(i{ ^ .'•'•'^0\ ^^^" RESPONDENTS: 1. ~7 2. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block - Rajpur; District - Surguja (C.G.) WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR SB : HON»BLBMR. JU8TICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RB8PONDBNTS W.P.fSl.NO. S603/2011 Bechan Raxo. versus State of C.G. & Others ^lllllll^ —--^^ Shri. Viplav Shrivastava^ coiinsel for fhe petitioner, Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L, for fhe State, WRITPBTITION UNDBRARTICLB 226 OPTHB CON8TITUTION OF IWDIA ORDER (21.09.2011) The petitioner was mitially appomted as Assistant Teacher on a fi5€ed pay of Rs. 169 aad fhereafter fhey werc grsaited regular pay scale on corapletion offheir probation period. The question of law involyed hereiix is as to wliefher fhe petitioner is entiUed to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of mitial appoiatment or from the date ofcompletion oftheir probation period, Counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner as well as for fhe State Joiatiy submit that the facts and question of law iiivolved ia the present writ petitfon are fhe same as to fhat m W.P.(S| No, 5976/06 (Sushil Tiwari and Ofhers v. State Goverament of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers) which was allowed vide order dated 07,11,06. Coiinsel for fhe petitioner submits that fhey may be permitted to file representation before fhe competeat authorit^ aaid ia tuni the aufhority may be directed to decide tfae same in llie light of fhe abovementioned order passed by this Court aad fhe circiilar date^l 12th December 2006 vide Amiexurc P-5. Counsel for^fhe State has no objectton if tibie petitioner makes any such reprepentation and fhe saiae is decided iii accoriaa.ee wifh ,^yro^^^ ^ ^.^ <f. ^ law and tiie order passed by tibite Court and also ia view of the circular (Annexure P-5). In view of ffae above submission made by tiie counsel for fhe parties, fhe petition is disposed ofwifh a direction to the petitioner to make representation beforc fhe competent aufhority widm thrce weeks from today aad ia fhe eventuallly of makiag aziy such representation fhe same would be decided by the concemed autibority after considexiag (he entire facts of the case wifhin a period of four laonfhts fhereafter. It is xaade clear that this Court has iiot expiiessed aay opmion on merits oftihie case aad tiie aufhority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide fhe same stdctly m accordaace wifh law* ____-—— Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge