"-'^^^" **' i C^ ( 00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BH,ASPUR WRITKETIT!ONiS)Jio. /2006 PETITIONER ^ss^ k^/A &^c--T,..,'£a»<^^''.!. .^c1,""' '•'*..'-••" •Ty-- ..^ c..' kaSS0-" ^c0^ co^^ VJ- &.. •^ \^ ^fiiN ^" s^& ^wtt' Ganga Prasad Bhatpahri, S/o., Shri S.R.Bhatpahri, aged about 40 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Balak Chhatrawas, Abhanpur, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur, R/o. Village and Post Abhanpur, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1) State Of Chhattoisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Assistant Cominissioner, Departaient Of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) :3) The Block Education Officer, Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITIOILUNDNZARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS \ _t!tfe:-.k.. HI6H COWTOF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIbtSPUR W. P.fSlNo. 5225/2006 Petitioner : Sanga Prasad Bhatpohri , Versus Req»ondents : Stort-e of Chhatt'isgnrh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Scrtish K. Agnihotri. J Smt. Hamida Siddi<pje, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajosy Dwivedi, Panel lonwyer for the respondents/State. ! ORDER (3r<l October, 2006) The following order of the Court' is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a direction to the reqiondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of his initial oppointment in the light of •the decision rendered by the feamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) dated 31.1.2000. 2. Leamed counsel oppearin9 for the petitioner placed on record a copy of the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court- in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur ond others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and submits that the petitioner is simihrly situated, -therefore, -the simikxr order may be passed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was cppointed as Assistant Tecicher in the School Education Oqwrhnent on probation for a period of two years with the fixed saldry. However, later on after completion of two years tenure the petitioner was regukiirized, but he was not given the regular pay scale. Other simitarty si'tuated tecKhers moved 1he State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scate, wherein leamed Tribunal vide order Arted 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petitioner made several representations to accord the same Thakur treatment as he is also similarly situated Assistant Teacher, but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus this petition. 4. Leamed counsel oppearin9 for the State/respondents submits that •the difference between the Upper Division Teacher and Assistant Teadier is that the fixed sakiry of the Assistant Teacher was Rs. 1200/- p.m. and that of Upper bivision Teacher was Rs. 14(X)/- p.m. The process of selection and perrod of probation was one ond the same. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits thort- -the petitioner muy be attowed to make a representation to -the Respondent No. 1 to gwe simihr treatment to +he petitioner and the same pay aale which have been sanctioned to other simiktrly situort-ed •teachers on the basis of the order dated 31.3.2000 of -the State Administrative Tribunal, to which leamed Stute counsel has no objection. 6. Having heard leamed counsel for the part'ies and hwing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in -the opinion of this Court the limited proyer made by teamed counset for the petitioner appears to be reasonoble. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to the respondent No. 1, raisirq all his grievances and in -him the Respondent No.l diall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 possed by the teamed State Administrotive Tribunal in O.A. No. 14S2/98, and if -the petitioner stunds on the same footin9S, as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then he be also sanctioned •the same pay scale <md seniority. 7. This writ petitwn is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge