'uess @r»;n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(S) No. 66^] / 2006 PETITIONER Tika Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Man Singh Sahu, aged about 44 years, Assistant Teacher (Science), Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Supela - Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ECEIT^6 'V^^n.«SL^VW c^to^u""~ ^ 1. State of Chhattisgrhf Through - The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director,/^ Public Instruction Department, Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur .1" ^'^)^-^'" ^gPilS^^^^P^ "" e'!^~""~'"'''•"s^-.••w^^^^.- tt ^l'-' iy;^U4/^YA 1 ^ <'"'.", ^ ^y-'yy"'^-'^/ ^i^Sly ""^MSy '^"^^^ District Education Officer Durg,-- •^^Uf^' Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 4. Principal,^' Govt. Hr.Sec. School Supela- Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ XI-HC-78 S'sg'^TPfRTO', ^Tn.y'KS, [slfll'My ^P^o.^4f/fi6 *fTq^TI St>*ll<*> ^ 200 OT^TtTg^ (yi(^s|<<y) an^rqirf^iNi craTsn^Tsbiiti S^ireT ;ETf?(T 311^1 06.12.2006 Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned co( Smt. Anju Aahuja, learned q 3S By this petition under Articl( the petitioner seeks a direction to and seniority on the basis of the d^ of the decision rendered by the Jabalpur in Original Applicatiofi No| others Vs. State of M.P. and othersl 2. Leamed counsel appearing order dated 9'h October 2006 pass^ 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar SharmE) and others) and in Writ Petition (^ State of Chhattisgarh and other^ similarly situated, therefore, the sim|! 3. The case of the petitioner Teacher in the School Education D| two years with the fixed salary. Ho^ years' probation, the petitioner was regular pay scale. Other similary Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.19 made several representations to ad *l'i|trl'Ifl-l WHvti if f&:6 <R]«l< ^?3if^T3iT^r nsel for the petitioner. A. forthe State/respondent. s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he respondents to pay the increments ite of his initial appointment in the light teamed State Administrathfe Tribunal, 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 idated 24.8.1992 'or the petitioner placed reliance on the id by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh |) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. ^ and submits that the petitioner is ilarorder may be passed. i^ that he was appointed as Assistant l|epartment on probation for a period of (vever, later on, after completion oftwo regularized but, he was not given the situated teachers moved the State F(sr regular pay-scale, wherein learned 19|92 allowed the same. The petitioner lcord the same treatment as he is atso 3. ^ XI-HC-78 *frHMI Sh^Teb 3^?^IPTRTO, ©Tll+l'IS,Rlc1l«y ^p. ND. ^^ly ^ 200 3n^?rwe (i^t\yf'if() an^n'^Tf^lR; (CT3nq?Tsntii<ti B^TRKHfNsfl^T L similarly situated, but, the responder| petttion. ts have not paid any heed. Thus, this <in 4. Learned eounsel for the petit|ioner be allowed to make a representatic treatment to the petitioner andsame] to other similarly situated teachers Administrative Tribunal dated 24.8.' respondent/State has no objection. submits that the petitioner may to respondent No.1 to give similar [pay-scale which has been sanctioned lon account of the order of the State 11992, to which learned counsel for the topay 5. Having heard leamedcounsejl the facts and circumstances of the limited prayer made by learned coi^nsel reasonable. Therefore, the petitionei| within a period of two weeks from grievances and, in tum, respon|dent representation in an objective mannf 'date of receipt of such representa|t raised by the petitioner and taking ir|to passed by the leamed State Adminisl: No. 2745/1989. 7. Certified copy as perrules. *i<if<i41-i tiit«-iTffteIA<Ri«i< ^Sff^ITSn^T for the parties and having regard to :ase, in the opinion of this Court, the for the petitioner appears to be is allowed to make a representation to respondent No.1, raising all his No.1 shall decide the said ;r within a period of 30 days from the |tion, after considering all the points account the order dated 24.8.1992 jtrative Tribunal in Original Application irito 6. The writ petition is accordir)gly disposed of with the aforesaid direction, No order asto costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.