yA/g‘ ‘ O’Qi 4KQ/ §mwEEmh *1 RENO Prewmdmww g x a 9 0 % daxad.,..,,g.m,; l cm/vL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIP PETITION (s1. Has/9% 12006 (1G PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bal/ Mukund Manjhi, aged about 38 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher — Adhikshak Balak Ashram ,Gaydabri, Block Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.). presently at R/o. Balak Ashram Gaydabn', Block Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) Shri Narad Manjhi S/o. VERSUS :1) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through/ Secretary, ,Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner/ _ Department of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Assistant Block Education Officer / :3) The Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(5) N0. 5465 of 2006 ' ’ Pe'H‘I'ioners : Ashok Kumnr Bisen a: o+hars Versus Responden‘rs Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh at o‘fhers And w.P.(5) No. 5476 of zoos Narad Manjhi Versus Pe'H'Honer ' Responden'rs , : Smfe of Chhnffisgarh & ofhers $8: Hon'ble Mr. Jus‘fice $a‘l'ish K. Agniho‘l'r‘i. J Smt Hameeda Siddque, counsel for me pe’tifioners‘ Sh ri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for fhe responden‘rs/ S‘l'afe. ORDER 4 (9*h amber, zoos) ‘ The follawing order of ‘H1e Cour'l’ is passed by Safish K. Agniho‘h‘i, J. . By This pe‘li‘l’ion under Arficle 226/227 of 1'l1e Consfifu‘l’ion of India, fhe pe’rifivners seek a direction +0 The responden'rs +0 pay 'l'he incremen‘l’s and seniori‘ry on fhe basis 0f 'Hwe da‘i’e of 'fheir' ini‘l’iai ' appoinfmenfs in fhe iighi of fhe decision rendered by The learned Sla'le Adminisfrai-ive Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh d: ofher‘s Vs. Sfa‘re of M.P. & al‘hers) dafed 31.1.2000. l . Learned counsel appearing for ‘l’he pefifioners placed on record a copy of 'll'le order da‘l’ed 23.3.2006 passed by 'Hnis Cour-ti in Wri'f Pe‘ri'l'ion No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur and ofhers Vs. Sla‘l’e of ”KC? Chhaffisgarh aroma-s) and submifs fhd fhe pe+i+ioners are simi!arly rsi‘rua'red, fherefone fhe similar order may be passed. . The presenT wriT peTiTions, being W.P.(5) No. 5465/2006 and W.P.(5) No. 5476/2006 involve similar fac+s and common ques‘l'ion of law. Thus, fhese pe+i+ions are being disposed of by fhis common order. . The cases of The peTiTioners are ThaT They were appoinTed as Teachers in ‘l'he School Educa‘rion Depar'fmen‘r/Tnibal Welfare - Depar‘rmem, on probafion for o period of fwo years wh‘h fhe fixed salary. However, iofer- on offer complefion of fwo years proba'l'ion, 'Hne pefii’ioners were regularized bu‘r fhey were no? given The regular pay scale. O'rher similarly sifuafed feacher's moved 'l‘he S‘l’a‘l'e Adminisfra'l’ive Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order da'l'ed 31.1.2000 allowed 1'he same. The pe‘ii‘fioners made several represenfa'iions 1'0 accord +he same +rea+men+ as They are also similarly sifua‘red Upper Division Teachers bu'l ‘l’he responden‘is have nof paid any heed. Thus, 'l'his pe‘li'iion. . Learned counsel for The peTiTioners submiTs ThaT The peTiTioners.may be allowed +0 make a represenia'lion +0 'l’he Respondenf No. 1 1’o give similar freafmenl' 1'0 ‘lhe pe'l'i'l’ione'rs and l'he same pay scale which have been sancfioned +0 oiher similarly sifuafed Teachers on accounf of ihe order of The Sfai'e Adminis‘ira'iive Tribunal dafed 31.1.2000, + 0 which learned S‘ra'l'e counsel has no objecfion. Having heard learned counsel for The parTies and having regard To The fads and circumsi'ances of +he case, in fhe opinion of fhis Courl’ fhe limifed prayer made by learned counsel for The peTiTionersappears To J“ . 573 be reasonable. Therefore, fhe pe-ri‘l'ioner-s are allowed fo make a represema‘tion wilhin a period of fwo weeks from loday To +he respondenf No. 1, raising all fheir grievances and in fur-n flue Qespondenf No.1 shall decide fhe said represenfa'rion in an objeciive manner wifhin a period of 30..days from ihe dafe of receip'r of such represen'l'afion, affer considering all The poin'fs raised by fhe peh'honers and faking Info accoun‘!’ the order dated 31 1 2000 passed by fhe learned S’ra'le Admmusfra'hve Tribunal In O A No 1452/98 ‘ . $ofh The wrif pefifions are accordingly’disposed of wi'rh fhe aforesaid direcfion. No order as +a costs. A copy of fhis order be placed in .‘ihe record of ofher one'connecfed . wrif pe‘rh‘ion. Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge l Sd/- Thokur