WWW mmm mmm wwmmim #mawmg %&wnwm Writ Petit' n S “0.807 2009 l. PETITIONERS ‘RESPONDENTS:‘ tate of Chhattisgarh, through cretaly Education Department, .K.S. Bhawan, Distt.—Raipur (CG) ish‘ict Education Offlcer, Raiptrr, istt. —Raipur (CG) istrict Education Officer, Bhatapara, is'tt. Raipur (CG) (Writ Petition under Articie 26> of the Constitution of India) Siggge Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhiiendra Misha, J. ' 09-02-2009? Shn‘ Ajay Shrivastava, comats‘él for the peu't'loners. Shn' Arum Sao, GA for the éiate, Heard. By the instant peh‘tion, flie petitioners seek a direch'on to the respondents to-pay the pay scale and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Trib‘unal, Jabalpur in Original Application I dram Pandel, S/o Shri Ramadhar, 6d about 49 years, UD’I‘, High chool Kurru, Abhanpur, Dist, Raipur ( ) I €Van Lal Shanna, S/o Late Shri aya PraSad Shanna, aged about 60 ars, Head Master, Govt. Primaxy chool Chjchpol, Distt. Raipur (CG) -V mus: 611%“ W (W) 29 WWW wmm WW§WW %aff?ma?lé¥t brief, is that the petitioners were pay-scale in the School Education period. Subsequently, their services )ducation Department of the State tioners placed reliance on the order Com in WP. (S) No.5473/2006 s. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and Bajpaz' Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Lers are similarly situated, therefore, Wm aizoo 311%“ W (W) mmm L No,2745/ 1989 (Madhukant Yadu a others) dated 24.8. 1992. Case of the petitioners, in appointed as teacher on a iixed Department on a flxed probation were regularized in the School E Government. Learned counsel for the peti udated 9th October .2006 passed by {Rakesh Kumar Shanna & Another W.P. (S) No. 5474/2006 élai Nat}: Ors.), and submits that the petitior the similar order may be passed, Learned counsel for the p may be allowed to make a repre similar treatment to the petition been sanctioned to other similarly order for the State Administrative Ileamed counsel for the respondent 1 for the parties and having regard Having heard learned couns o the facts and circumstances of e limited prayer made by learne Therefore, the presentation within a period o be reasonable. ‘oners submits that the petitioners ntation to respondent No.1 to give rs and same pay—scale which has situated teachers on account of the unal dated 24.8. 1992, to which [State has no objection. e case, in the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioners appears petitioners are allowed to make a f two weeks h‘om today before md 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and ' e 'b 5M Wm... ' E1200 611%?!W (W) Wwm 3 respbndent No. 1, raising all their in tum, respondent No.1 shall d objective 'manner within a period r WWW WWW mm wm $aimm petiiioners and taldng into accouJ by the learned State Administrat No.2745/ 1989. The writ petition is accord: direction. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. grievances raised in this petition and ecide the said representation in an 3f 30 days from the date of receipt of 1t the order dated 24.8.1992 passed ive Tribunal in Original Application ngly disposed of with the aforesaid 5di— , \V Dhirendra Mishra Judge WWWmwwrs/gs 11/2008 1,00,000. \ N such representation, after consi+ering all the points raised by the