IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (S) No. gée‘a OF 2006 Petitioner : Tularam Dadsena, S/o. Shrix Maniram Dadsena, aged about 45 i'n’f 0 years, Occupatiou Government Servant (Assistant Teacher Govt. Primary School, Jogidipa, Block .5 > r Q" and District Mahasamund, R/o. f3$Village 'Patewa, Post Patewa ¢C (PithOra) District Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents 1) ,State 'of Chhattisgarh throughx' Secretary Department of School Education, DKS Bhavan, Manfralaya, Raipur (C.G.). Education Officerx" District District Mahasamurid Mahasamund (C.G.) 3) Block Education Ofiicer, Block Education Office District Mahasamund (C.G.) Mahasamund RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS. ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION IDIRECTIONS etc. b ’i .9 9 0 ‘ w f'W C w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR W. P.(S)No. 5609 of 2006 Pefi‘rioner : Tulamm Dndsana Versus Responden'rs : 51'n're of ChhaTfisgurh & ofhers SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice swish K. Agnihotri, J Miss Sharmiln Shinghai, Advocufe for ‘rhe pe‘l’i‘fionzr. Sm‘r. Anju Ahuja. Depufy Governmanf Advoca‘fe for fhc respondenfs/S'fafe. ORDER (13* amber, zoos) The following order of The Court is passed by Safish K. Agnihofri, J. . By This pe'rii’ion under Arficle 226/227 of ihe Consh'iu'rion of India, The peiifioner seeks o direcfion +0 1he respondenfs 'ro pay The incremen‘l’s and seniority on the basis of the date of his initial appointments in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No‘ 1452/98 (Harish Chond Singh 8i others Vs. State of M.P. d: others) dated 31.1.2000, 0.A.No. 802/98 (Akhilesh Mishra di others Vs. State of Modhya Pradesh d: others) and O.A.No. 991/98 (Rdmayan Prasad Dwivedi <51 others Vs. state of MP. dc others). . Learned counsel appearing 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 and others Vs. State of 44 Chha'f'risgarh & ofhars) and submifs That fhe pefi‘rioner' is similariy simafed, fherefore, 111a similar order may be passed. . The case of fhe pefi‘rioner is fha'r he was appoin'red as Assisfan'f Teacher in The School Educa'rion Deparfmen‘r on proba'rion for n period of ‘rwo years with fhe fixed salary. However, luier on affer completion of Mo year-s prohafion, fhe pefi‘rioner was regularized hu'l he was noT given 'l'he regular pay scale. O‘rher similarly simafed fenchers moved The S'l'a‘re Administrative Tribunal, Jubalpur for regular pay scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order da'l'ed 31.1.2000 allowed The same. The pefii'ioner made several represenfa'iions +0 accord 'l'he same Trea‘rmen‘r as he is also similarly si'iuafed Assis'l'anf Teacher, bu? The respondenTs have noT paid any heed. Thus, This peTiTion. . Learned counsel for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner may be allowed To make a represenTaTion To The RespondenT No. 1 To give similar TreaTmenT To The peTiTioner and The same pay scale which have been sancTioned To oTher similarly siTuaTed Teachers on accounT of The order of The STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal daTed 31.1.2000, To which learned STaTe counsel has no objecTion. . Having heard learned counsel 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 learned counsel for The peTiTioner appears To be reasonable. Therefore, The peTiTioner is allowed To make a represenTaTion wiThin a period of Two weeks from Today To The respondenT No. 1, raising all his grievances and in Turn The RespondenT No.1 shall decide The said represenTaTion in an objecTive manner wiThin q o / a period of 30 days from The date of receipt of such represenmfion, offer considering a” fhe poin'rs raised by 'rhe pe‘fifioner and faking in‘ro accounf The order do'fed 31.1.2000 passed by fhe learned S‘rm‘e Adminisfru‘rive Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if The pefifioner sfonds on The same foofings, as fhe pefiiioners in fhe O.A. No. 1452/98 fhen he be also sanctioned fhe same pay scale and seniori'ry. . This wrh‘ pemion is accordingly disposed of with The aforesaid direciion. No order as 1’0 cosfs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Babiu l‘