^.o —78 f^69 ~3^T ^I^Kn^, ^tli<-f^^, I^TRT^ ^1*<WI SfiHICft •^200 3^?T ^^F ( ^cki^^) ^Tiit^i ^rr ^rNF T^ ^TT ^^ ^H^ '^nw^fr^^n^T '^i<{(^t4^y ^RTR'^ft* ^" fe^ TR^?R ^atRw'BTl^T Writ Petiti PETITIONBR: RBSPONDENTS: 1. 2, 3. 4. J^shwaai Kumar Mishra, aged about |t9 years, U.D.T,, S/o Shri Bhagwati prasad Mishra, Govt. Middle School pitkuU, Block-Beraetara, Distt-Durg tCG) Versus- ptate Govt. of Chhattisgarh, fh.mugh pecretary Ediication Department, p. K. S. Bhawaii, Distt. -Raipur (CG) pistt. Education Officer, Bemetara, pistt.-Durg (CG) plock Education Officer, Benietara, pistt-Durg (CG) (Writ Petitioa uader Article 8in^LeBench:Hoa'bleShriDhl coui^sel 06-01-2009:- Shri Sorakaat Vemia, Shri Pankaj Shrivstava, Heard. The petitioner has filed ti^ respondents to graat hiai regula| of his iaitial appoiiitaient along Case of the petitioner, appoiated as teacher on a fixedj on (Sl No.6552/2008 rreasury, Accoiint & Pension, Durg, Distt. Diirg (CG) 226 ofthe Coustitution oflndia) readra Mishra, J. Pabel for the petifioner. Lawyer for fhe State. |e iastant petition for direction to fhe pay-scale and seniority froin fhe date ^7ifh aiTears and uiterest. |n brief, is tiiat the petitioner was pay-scale of Rs.500/- by the Jaiipacl ..^^ ff^ i;-^-^HG-78 3TI^T^Tl^fN? ^87T W^T^^IW ^ '3'sr ^j'qi^Af, ^Tiifi<i<o, [stc'ii'Hy ^IS*1^tl (ttW^» '^200 ^TT^T ^RRT (lc(i^<t^) F^nw ^f^ 3nti? -?4 Paachayat, Bemetara vide oi^er of Annexure P-1 dated 13,9,1991. Subsequently, his services w^re absorbed ui flie School Education Department of Uie State Gover4ment, Leanied counsel appeartng for the petitioner placed relian.ee on fhe order of Aniiexure P-2 dat^d 29U1 Juue 2007, whereui it has been provided Uiat Dy. Teachers/ Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & OT^ petitioner siibniits that siraU^ ^y T^q^f "^ ft^ xf^l^R '^^ffW^T^T Asst. Teachers/Teachers, who were appoiiited on fixed pay scale, after successfuUy conipletion of probation period of two years shaU be ent|tled for regular pay scale aad arrears of increments eanied by them du^mg fheir probation penod from the date of their uiitial appotatinent, Placiag rellaiice on the c(rder dated 9th October 2006 passed by this Court iii W.P. (S) No.5473/[2006 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Another .; arid W.P. (S) No. 5^7^/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs, State of Chhatiis^irh & Ore.^ leanied counsel for the r order Biay be passed ia the iiistant petitlon. On fhe ofher haad, lean4ed counsel for tiie State subniits that in case fhe petitioner files frest| representation before fhe respondent No.2 for redressal ofhis grievs decided by ttie respondent No, iaces, fhe same shall be considered and p wifhin a period of four weeks froni the date of receipt of fhe represen^ verification of flie case of tiie p{ lation, iii accordaiice wifh law, after due ^titioner, In view of the above subbiission of learaed coiinsel for fhe State, tSie iastaiit petition is disposejd of wifh liberty to the petitioner to file -^^ ^ ':'^.:^k. XJ-H^-78 .^ ^' -2^ '3's? •^ii*ii(yiA|, ©tii-y^tfo,fs|^i'y^< *1(«^ITWW^ ^200 ^?T^¥?TR^t ( yii^^f) 3?T^i ^l'f^NF ^l^?3^^ ^^i^ 5 k-<»^ ^<i!W ^^f BrH^? ^ 1ani<<t<?i<ftn ^TO^* ^ fe^ ifwgK ^^t^^TI^? fresh representation before the grievaaces along wifh copy offh|s order. Gn such representation being Biade, fhe saiixe shall be consi| No,2 wifhia a period of four ^ tiered aiid decided by fhe responde.nt ^eeks froni fhe date of receipt of fhe representation, ia accordance ^ifh law, after due veri&cation of ttie case of fhe petitioner. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge rcspondent No.2 for redressal of his