N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHIHATTISGARH A ILASPUR slNGLE, BENCH v WRIT PETITION (S) No. aiaH /2o1o / Onkar §ingh Rathore S/ agdis‘hi Prasad Rathor ged ab%)ut 55 Year‘s Uppe v iddle sfchoo'l Sodhi,‘ Bloc M k — B‘amhnidih, Distt. Janjgi — Champa (C.G. D: eacer ivision Th, VRSS EU I RESPONDENTS State of Chha‘ttisg‘ar : 1. h Secrt, r of E‘d‘uCatio .’ ipilr, (C.G. . The District Education Ofi Di jr— Ch CG) eary Depatment n' Mantralaya, ,g 00 a T Av a m 1% fcer; istrct Jangi o ampa (.. e/ 3 . Block‘EducatiOn Officer, h Blo‘ck'- Bamhnidi istt. Janir—Cha’m‘p C.. D jga (G) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF @ 1V I T i B O J e a r Got. r ) Through DKLS. Bhawan, Ra ) 2/ INDIA O/Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAM-i AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S! ‘ o. 204 0f2010 PETITIONER : Onkar Singh Rathore. VERSU RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgath & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'H‘IE CONSTITUI'IGN OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. J. Pram: Sim Ashwani snukla, Advocate ior am‘ yamqnm. smi P.K.Bhaauri, Panel Lawyex fai th’e State/respondents. » ...- v ~ ORALORHER (Passgd (m l5-Eday of IaEwy, 2010) With the consent ofthe patties, the mwer is taken up hrheu‘ingriinally. l. ’The petitioner was initially appointed as Asm'stam Teacher on a fixed: pay of Rs. 150/-. After/oomplgtion of his pmbation periad, he was grantedA ‘ regular pay scale ofRs. 169-300/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sumlits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to negalar pay scale w.e.f.‘ the date of initial appointment or aher completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was comidered by the Madhya Pndesh 8mm Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OA No. 2745/89 (Madlrukant Yam and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed ~ ‘ by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision ofthe Tribunal to the WK eEect that the Teachers/Assistm Teachers are entitkd to reguiar pay scale m date ofinitial appoimment. 2 Leamed counsel appearing for the ' ’oner nlso submits that mix court, while considering me same issue in Amar Sai Ram & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others [W.P. (S) 0.4725/2006] by ordar datbd 01.09.2006, aIIOWed the petitioners to= make a repnesartation whhin; a ‘ period often days, raising all their grievalwes. Accordingly, the petitioner legunted ‘libexty to make a representation raising all his gievances in light of the afmswed judgment and me circular dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P/2) and in 111m, the concerned - respondent is directed to Mde the represemations, if any, in eceordanee withlaw,onitsownmetits,withinaperiodof$weeks&omthe dateiof ‘ receipt ofthe representation, subjectto'verification ofthe Ms. . In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order ante conts; "“W Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge