^. SATTii ItPetjtion (S) No.5810 of 2008 Ojha Ram Sahu, aged 53 yers, S/o. Shri Lutan Ram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Giris Primary Schooi, Utal, District Versus The State Sovernment of Chhattisaarh. through the Sscretary, School Education Department Msnistry,' D.K.S. Bhavan, 3. Director of Public instructions, Stete Of Chhattisgarh, Penston Bada, Raipur (CG). The District Eclucation Officer, Durg (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K'. Agnihotri, J. r'resent: Mr. S Mr.P. Verma, haduri, Panei rver for the Stc Qi L(Passed on this 18'" day of October, 2008) With the consent of learned counsei for the parties, the matter is heard finaily.j , . 2) By this petition underArticle 226/227 of the Constituiion of india, the petitioner'sseks a directipnto fhe respondents to pay the inerements and seniority pn the basis ofthe date of his initjal appointment in ffie iight by the learned State Administrative Tnbuna), tication No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 of the decision Ja&aspur in un@ oihers Vs.State ofM.P. and others) dated 24-8-1992. • 3) Learned counsel appsaring for the petitioner placed relisnce on the Court in Writ Petition (S) and another Vs. Sfate of Chhattisgarh ^and others) and^in.Wnt Pstition (S) No. 5474/2006. (Jai, order dated 9" 5473/20W October 200:81;passed by Kumar Sharma 0> -11. NaSh Bajpai Vs. State qf.Chhattisgarh.'and others) and suhmits that the pstitioner is simiiarly situated, therefore, the similsr order may be passed. 3) The case of the petitioner is that he wss appointed Ss Assistant Teacher in ths School Education Department cn probation for a one year with the fixed salary'. However, latpr on, after compietion of one year probatlon, the petltic-ner was regularized but he was not given the rsgular pay scale from the date his initiai appointment. Other similariy situated teachers moved the StaSe Administrative Tribunai, Jabslpur for Tribunal vlde order dated 24-8-1992 lar pay scaie, wnerein allowed the same. The petitioner made severai representations to accord the same treatment.as he is aiso similarly situated, resppndents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petltion. 4) Leamed counsei for the petitionersu&mits that the petitioner be ailowed to make a representetion to respondent No.1 to give s same pav scaie which hos been sanctioned to other similarlv situated teachers on accourt State Administrative Tribunai dated 24-8-1992, to the the orde'r of 'hich iearned counse! for the respondents/Stat®has no objection. •Hi •Having heard iearned counsel for the parties and, having regard to the facts and cireumstances of thecase, in the opinion ofihis Court, the limited prayer made by isarned counsei for the pstitioner appears to be reasonabie. Therefore, the petitioner is ai representation v/ithin a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1 raising al! his grievances and in tum respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering a!l the points raised by the petltioner and taking into account the order dated / s. 1»..^J Tftiu^v^ ^aaassy .3- Raju 24-8-1992 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunai in Original Appi ication No.2745/1989. 6) The writ petition is accordingiy disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. ' SdA- : . SatishK.Agnihotri Judge '/