©E. c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR FC.G.I WRIT PETITION (S) !{0,—r-^-'—'-—/2006 PETITIONER ^ ^' '^f^y ^y ^?'JS RESPONDENTS J-J'" i o c. ,v ^' ^Ku. Mary Tigga D/o late Simon Tigga Aged-about 41 years, Govt. Higher secondary School Kota-a, Block- Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department of Education, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] ..2. The Director, Public instruction, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] ^rJoint Director, .<>i!' Public instruction iSW ^••' -^1 •:*f <y Division, Raigarh [C.G.] 4. District Education officer Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS The above named petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: HIGH COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Petitioner Respondents WRnLPETlTION (S.) N0,7240 OF 2006 Ku. Neel Kusum Ekka versus StaSe of Chhattisgarh and others Petitionsr Responderts WRST PETiTION (S.) N0.7241 OF 2006 Smt. Urmila Khaikho versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRIT PET1TION (S.) N0.7242 OF 2006 Smt. Regina Toppo versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETSTION (S.} N0.7244 OF 2006 Ku. Mary Tigga versus State of Chhattisgarh and others SB M: ;aa ?ai ¥M Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.S N0.7245 OF 2006 Smt. Rukmani Patel versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6900 OF 2006 Petitioners Respondents versus Gopal Singh Verma and others State of C.G. and others Petitioner Resoondents WRIT PETiTION (S.) N0.72S5 OF 2006 Manak Ram Kurre versus Petjtipner ResBondents State Government of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7266 OF 200S Ram Dayal Sidar versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others WR!T PETITION ?S.) N0.7267 OF 2005 Petitioner : Dhan Singh Sidar versus Respondents State Government of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner ResRQndents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7268 OF 2006 Murit Ram Sidar versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others PetitiQner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7269 OF 2006 Bairam Singh Paikara versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others WR!T PETIT10N (S.) N0.7270 OF 200S Petitioner : Brajraj Nagraj versus RespQndente State Govemment of Chhatttsgarh and others WRiT PETITSON (S.3 N0.7271 OF 2006 Petitioners : Shiv Lal Singh Maravi and others versus Respondente State of Chhattisgarh and others ^l WRiT PETITION (S.S N0.7274 OF 2006 Petitioner : Smt. Usha Shrivateva versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WR1T PETITION (S.) N0.7275 OF 2QOS Chandika Prasad Pandey versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petjtioner WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7276 OF 2006 Shiv Kumar Shuk!a yersus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7277 OF 2005 Smt. Rashmi Dwivedi versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7287 OF 2006 Petitioners ysrsus ResBondente Santosh Kumar Banjare and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner R^sDondente WR!T PETITION (S.S N0.7231 OF 2006 Smt. Vimla Devi Bhagat versus State of Chhattssgarh and another Petjtioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7292 OF 2006 Smt. Savita Minz versus State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7294 OF 2006 Petitioners versus Respondents Milan Ram Vishwakarma and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Sanjay Patsl, Mrs. Hamida Siddique, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. Mahendra Dubey and Mr. V.K.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Adyocate, Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 3'° Day of January, 2007) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and offters) dated 31-1-2000 and Original Application No.2745 of 1989 (Madhukarrt Yadu and 56 others vs. StateofM.P. ando(ftera)dated 24-8-1992. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the present bateh of v/rit petitions are similar to that of Writ Petition (S.) No.5784 of 2006 (Miiap Ram Daharia and others vs. State of Chhaitisgarh and others), which has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 27-10-2006. 3. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of IMO years with the fixed salary. However, !ater on, after completion of two years' probation, the petitioners were regularized, but, they were not given the regular pay-scaie. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, aliowed the same. The petitioners made severa! representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similariy situated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, {hese petitions. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other simiiarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunaldated 31-1- 2000, to which tearned counsel appearing for the State/respondents have no objection. ,'~—> 5. Having heard learned counsei appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by iearned counsel appearing for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, She petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner wifhin a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering ai! the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the iearned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be ateo sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. Gopai 6. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I