E<m ^3^."!. ^V.V^^.^% S- ^^".s^^^^ ii :^'j L? ;>>^ ^y^^Ssiy ^ j^- OF CHHATTISGARH AT WRIT PETITION (S) N0^8^72006 PETITIONER ^. ^e'.«•- 9^^ <1^ ^' ^- ^--^ -•^l'/- ^'^n!y RESPONDENTS y ^1">1 ^>^^> Moh. Rafik Faruki S/o Late Shri Shekh Ahamad Faruki, Age about 40 years, AssistantTeacher, C/o - Basar Computer, Shitala Para, Distt. - Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS State Government of Chhattisgarh /^ Through:- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) District Education Officer / Kanker (C.G.) Block Education Officer / Kanker, Distt. - Kanker (C.G.) Joint Director (Treasury/Accounts),/ Jagdalpur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTIONJ3F iNDIA N' ,fS, XI-HC-78 sn^T^Tfera; gw sn^T sb*iro *ii*iCTTai*irei 3?? •<ii'i<i<rt4i, ®T(l*ili<o,Rowy ^.^.^sr.^ 200(0 3iT^?Tiraw (I^5^y) ?^<nw ofer sn^r Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Smt. Anju Aahuja, iarned counsel for the petitioner. learitied G.A. for the State/respondents. By the petition under India, the petitioner seeks a increments and seniority 01^ appointment in the iight ofthi Administrative Tribunal, J4 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadi) othersldated 24.8.1992. 2. Learned counsel appes the order dated 9th Ocfober 3( (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Chhattisgarh and others) ancj Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhgjt petitioner is simiiarly situate<l 3. Thecaseofthe Teacher in the School of one year with the fixed sa! of one year probation, the given the regular pay scale Other similarly situated tea Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular order dated 24.8.1992 allovi/e. °bl'i|td41-l t|l*«-lTfffec^<R]<^K ^srf^tiTgn^T Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of direction to the respondents to pay the the basis of the date of his initial decision rendered by the iearned State ibalpur in Originai Appiication No. and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and |iring for the petitioner piaced reliance on J006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Itumar Sharma and another Vs. State of in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai ajttisgarh and others) and submits that the I, therefore, the similar order may be petitior|er is that he was appointed as Assistant Educatjon Department on probation for a period iry. However, later on, after completion p^titioner was regularized but he was not rom the date of his initial appointment. thers moved the State Administrative tiay-scaie, wherein learned Tribuna! vide the same. The petitioner made several XI-HC-78 3n^T?)Tf^TW cPTT-3fl^Tsh^ich 3^'SIPIRPT, »Tn<^'|<o,RlcfW^< ww\ ^w^-^-SJ- •^ 6 •<3-^ 200 6 3n^?rirag? (i^3^ET) 5^ITWflf?tT3:11^T representations to accord the s situated, but, the respondents petition. 4. Learned counsel for thel may be allowed to make a similar treatment to the petiti sanctioned to other simiiarly ofthe State Administrative counsel for the respondent/Statf 5. Having heard iearned to thefacts andcircumstances the limited prayer made by to be reasonable. Therefore, representation vwthin a period c| No.1, raising ali his grievance^ decide the said representation of 30 days from the date of considering all the points account the order dated 24.! Administrative Tribunal in 6. The writ petition is acco) direction. No order as to costs. 7. Certified copy as per rui^ reprjesentation <»ll<l?l1<fl-f *111MTtffgl^l'<.l"IWI<. ^aiRrirsn^r |ame treatment as he is also similariy have not paid any heed. Thus, this on^r sitilated Tribijna coilinsel learhed petitioner submits that the petitioner to respondent No.1 to give and same pay-scale which has been teachers on account of the order il dated 24.8.1992, to which learned has no objection. forthe parties and having regard ^fthe case, in the opinion ofthis Court, counsei for the petitioner appears [he petitioner is allowed to make a two weeks from today to respondent and, in turn, respondent No.1 shalt n an objective manner within a period receipt of such representation, after ed by the petitioner and taking into L 1992 passed by the learned State iication No. 2745/1989. •dingiy disposed of Viflth the aforesaid raided Origin|al App Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ^SM-Z ^ ,<^ ^