1N THE HmH couR'r OF JuoxcxrunE, AT 31mm”; (CqGJ Géo g « “Ram Kumar Mlshra Son of Shrl Bhagwan Prasad Mlshra, 9ba®w aged about 39 years, Occupation- Asst. Teacher, Govt Girls H.s. School Champa, Resl. Of Near Kali Mandlr,Chandnlya Para, Janjglr Dlstt Janjglr—champa (C G) )I VERSUS tate of Chhattlsgarh through the Secretary Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Ralpur (C.G.). 2 /Dlrector Publlc Instructlon, Ralpur (C G) 3. District Education Officer, ”/Disttg-Jajnglr Champa (C.G.) 4. Block Education Offlcer, , Nawagarh, Distt.- Janjglr Champa (C.G.) w XI-HC-78 HW,W§,W N'f6)£é%0 o ..oo .oov.o‘o.‘o.oo.o Wm (W) WWW WWW WW§WW mmm %;3T%wan%:1 07.1 2.2006 Shri Ashwani Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Aahuja, learn ad G.A. for the State/respondents. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks‘ a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis’of the date of his initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Ja aalpur in Originai Application No. 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. and others) dated 24.8.1992 2. Learned counsel appea'ing for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 9th October 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5473/2006 (R‘akes'h KJmar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chh‘at:isgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is similarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The case of the petition er is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of one year with the fixed sale ry. However, later on, after completion of one year probation, the pe itioner was regularized but he was not given the regular pay scale f om the date of his initial appointment. .Other similarly situated teac ers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular ay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal Vide order dated 24.8.1992 allowed the same. The petitioner made several ‘ P.T.O. XI—HC—78 3%? w,m,%mgt . awgcs‘) Qé‘ao W.o.o.oooo¢.ooooo‘o.o. a? 2006 \ WW (W) WW§WW mwm éxwm WWW representations to accord the same treatment as he is also similarly situated, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counsei for t petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a re resentation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitio er and same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly s tuated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tri unal dated 24.8.1992, to which learned counsel for the respondent/St te has no objection. 5. Having heard iearned c unsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by le rned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to make a representation within a period of twoweeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all his grievanc s and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representati in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date receipt of such representation, after considering all the points ra sed by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 24 8.1992 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Orig nal Application No. 2745/1 989. 6. The writ petition is acc rdingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to cost 7. Certified copy as per ru s. . 5d]- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. m e o o s