IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMS) No.7i€+/2006 PETITIONERS 9« : 1) Kulesh Kumar Sonwani, S/o. Shri Ramdayal sonwani, aged about 35 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant, UDT. Govt. Higher Secondary School, TWD Manchuwa Post Manchuwa, District Durg (C.G.) Smt.Shakun Dhruv (Oica)) W/o. Shri B.S.Dhruv, aged about—35’ +Q‘A‘aw years, Occupation— Govt. Servant, aq.Q.¢é Govt. Higher Secondary School Pondi, District Durg (C.G.), Gopi Ram Thakur S/o. Shri Raghu Ram Thakur, aged about 34 years, Occupation Govt. Servant U.D.T, Govt. Higher Secondary School Sahgaon, Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Durg (C.G.) Niranjan Lal Gharendra, S/o. Shri Nathu Ram, aged about 42 years, Occupation— Govt. Servant (U.D.T. Govt. Middle School, Karregaon, — P.O. Village Pingal Sahgaon, Tahsil Dondi Lohara District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS >:1) State. of Chhattis‘garh, Secretary, Tribal Department, DKS Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Durg Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETIION UNDER ARTICLES 226 f .- Through Welfare Bhavan, District OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - , Department XI-HC-78 Q 9 WW ~ LA‘.€.-.C$D%~.mg% 200C Wm (W) WWW mmm marwm 02.01 .2007 Smt. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Sunita Jain, iearn ed PL. for the Statelrespondents. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of direction to the respondents to pay the 1 the basis of the date of their initial e decision rendered by the learned State abalpur in Original Application No. Singh and others Vs. State of MP. and WW WW %31f%1m1%w ' india, the petitioners seek a increments and seniority or appointment in the light of th Administrative Tribunal, J 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra others) dated 31 .1 .2000. 2. Learned counsel app< on the order dated 3'“ Octc Petition (S) No. 5473/2006 ( State of Chhatttsgarh and 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai \ submits that the petitioners a order may be passed. raring for the petitioners placed reliance iber 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. others) and in Writ Petition (S) No. ’s. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and re similarly situated, therefore, the similar l 3. The case of the pettioners is that they were appointed as 'the School Education Department on Upper Division Teachers ir i . tater on, after completion of regularized but, they were ot given the regular pay scale from the date of their initial appoint ent. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administr tive Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay- scale, wherein learned Trib nal vide order dated 31.1.2000 ailowed the same. The petitioners m de several representations to accord the probation for a period of twp years with the fixed saiary. However, o years’ probation, the petitioners were XI—HC—78 @. SEW, m;l%?vrragt Wm~H:.e.@wmg,4i 200g Mam WWW m m w m same treatment as they Wr respondente have not paid any 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners resentation to respondent No.1 to give 3ners and same pay-scale which has trly situated teachers on account of the ve Tribunal dated 31.1.2000, to which tents/State has no objection. 5. Having heard learned c< to the facts and circumstances the limited prayer made by lea to be reasonable. Therefore, V representation within a period No.1, raising all their grievanc decide the said representation of 3O days from the date o receipt of such representation, after considering all the points rai ed by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1452/1 998. 6. The writ petition is acc rdingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishl‘a WW§WW %W3TI%QT mm (W) are also similarly situated, but, the heed. Hence, this petition. may be allowed to make a re; similar treatment to the petiti been sanctioned to other similz order of the State Administrat learned counsel for the responl >unse! for the parties and having regard of the case, in the opinion of this Court, 'ned counsel for the petitioners appears the petitioners are allowed to make a of two weeks from today to respondent es and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall in an objective manner within a period 7. Certified copy as per rul s. Judge P.T.O.