\ff^1 -...-"•„ A^- e o\'^':l...--."fty&' '...K:rr"9^-:-" [^^^^-- ^;, ,nt!:.C"'i D -\' p,^e"l '"...^:- da 0-" c^^-^t IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE. ATBILASPUR fC.G.l W.P.fSl N0. (S&^ci /2006 PBTITIONBR: ^--taxml Prasad Markam Son of Shrl Mahesh Ram Markam, aged about 40 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Mlddle School Amartal, Block Akaltara Dtstt. Janjglr- champa (C.G.) RE8POBDEBT8 VERSUS 1. ^^- ^State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Secretary Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of EducaUon, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Ralpur (C.G.). 2. Dlrector Pubtlc Instructlon, ^ Ralpur (C.G.) 3. Dlstrlct Educatton Offlcer, Dtstt.-Janjglr Champa (C.G.) f .-?& 4. Block Educatlon Offlcer, ^ Akaltara, Dlstt.- Janjglr Champa (C.G.) VtRTT F'EmnON UNDER AKTirT.ie 226 jffla? OP THE OONSTmjnCMI OF WSIA K»lKSUANCE OF AFHtOFRIATE •WKHS I ORDBKS ANDDIRBCH01W AS THimynED HT. A i 1 XI-HC-78 *<INCTISh*1I<tl 3:5ET^fTO?I;!T, ®'rfl«'16,RKrtlUy -2—tA^/i9.(X>& 6<?-9 ._.--. . ^g^ W-X: >.^..-f. "^T^.^20® C, 3n^'?TMa<n (t^ts'5"*?) 311^1 ERT ft-l (CTWiRTsPlNi BTdTWHf^an^T <tii«(M-4)-iiii<iT ff tetA <Ri<^i< iB3Tf^T3I1^?r . 1. 05.12,2006 Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learn^ ShriVinay Pandey, lear(ied ^d counsel for the petitioner. P.L. forthe State/respondent. By this petition under the petitioner seeks a directioi|i and seniority on the basis of of the decision rendered by Jabalpur in Original Applicatioj others Vs. State of M.P.and /Hrticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to the respondents to pay the increments t|ie date of his initiat appointment in the light |the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Np. 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 ol|hers)dated 24.8.1992 2. Leamed counset appea order datedS October2006 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar i and others) and in Writ Petitii State of Chhattisgarh and similarly situated, therefore, thi (•ing forthe petitioner placedreliance on the ^assed bythis Court in Writ Petition (S)No. Shtirma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh jin (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. o^hers) and submits that the petitioner is similar order may be passed. 3. The case of the petitioher Teacher in the School Educatibn two years with the fixed salary). years' probation, the petitionei) regular pay seale. Other sint Administrative Tribunal, Jabalt>ur Tribunal vide order dated 241 made several representations is that he was appointed as Assistant Department on probation for a period of I. However, later on, after completion oftwo was regularized but, he was not given the I'llarly situated teachers moved the State for regular pay-seale, wherein learned [8.1992 allowed the same. The petitioner ko accord the safne treatment as he is also P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3T1^ST Sfil f?^N; am sn^r s»iH ^- ^ •^ Ts^Bipncra', aflly'is, Ricii+iy {^ <f -CSJ 6 G 2-^ HI*4MI SbHlch wr 200c 3)l^s>l Ma<»> (ly:l^°l<<<T) ^BTWHfgcrSTI^r simiiarly situated, but, the respjondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for th( be allowed to make a represf treatment to the petitioner and| to other similarly situated tea| Administrative Tribunal dated respondent/State has no objec| wrfcpfrr innaf ir'te^l-risrezR ^3ff^IT3n?RT ? petitioner submits that the petitioner may pntation to respondent No.1 to give simitar |same pay-scale which has been sanctioned ?hers on account of the order of the State M.8.1992, to which learned counsel for the tion. 5. Having heard leamed c|ounsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances c|f the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by leam^d counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable, Therefore, the pel|itioner is allovred to make a representation within a period of two weeks frjom today to respondent No.1, raising all his grievances and, in turn, r^spondent No.1 shalP decide ths said representation in an objective (nanner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such repr^sentation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and ta((ing into account the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the learned State Atlministrative Tribunai in Original Application No. 2745/1989. 6, The writ petition is acjcordingly disposed of vwth the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs.l 7. Certified copy as per rul|es. Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge