l»KVi IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.f5)NO. ^fi^ /2011 PETETEONER .^ ^•v> ^•^^\.\s>y t.^-'r^fw ,.^\-r -••• ^' ..-• ^ RESPQNDENTS Mangtu Ram, S/o Puturam, aged about 49 years, Headmaster, 6ovt. Primary school, Sarga, Block -Sitapur, Distt. Sur9uja (C.6.) VERSUS : 1. ' State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. ^, Bhawan, Raipur (.C.G.) 2. District Education Officer, Distt. Surguja (C.6.) WRIT PETCTION UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA, la HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR PETITIONER WMT PETmON (S) No. 768 of2011 MangtuRam. VERSUS EESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. wRrr pETi'noN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE coNs'HTmioN OF INDIA 8B: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri A-S.RaJput, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondeuts. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 09th day of Febmary, 2011) 1. The petitioner was initiaUy appointed as Assistant Teacher oa a fixed pay ofRs. 300/-. After completion ofprobation period, he was manted regular pay scale. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that tiie issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay sca\s •w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointment or after conyletion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Adnunistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State ofMJ>. <& others), whereia it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale •w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointment. The matter was taken up to HonUe Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the HonWe Supreme Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect that the jii'y^ i^'.;;^.±^':-~^'-SB^^^:EIS^^SEEtia^M^ !>a< ^^''**BU^ i iii ii' ' " '" ' "":' •••-——-——=•••• - w Atmt 7^S'SS^^^^S^SSSt s^S^S^gga^-^^s^16 ^^^s^ Teachers/AssistantTeachers are entitfedto regularpay scale firom date ofinitial appointment. 4. Leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner also subnrits fhat this court, while considering fhe same issue mAmar Sai Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others [W.P. (S) No. 4725/2006] by order dated 01.09.2006, allowed the petitiaiers to make a representation alcmg with copy ofthe petition and amiexures within a period often days, raising all their grievances and in tum the concemed respondent was directed to decide the representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation raising all his grievanees and in tum, the eoncemed respondent is directed to decide the representation, if any, in accordance wifh law, on its own merits, within a period of 8 weeks fi-om the date ofreceipt oflfae representation. 6. In view oflfae foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotn Judge 1