S %6,EBFKW i p.R.fe....,..^i^^a-6 Presentea oy Shri..j^.K^^"^,, SEte<s--'-^.^S>l^S:"s'^vrvi^ ^T C.^,3^/ CL.<T( l6 & ^- IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WMT PETITION (S) No. /2006 ^-••'v.t Petitioners ^ :1) Ashok Kumar Bisen, S/o. Shri Chetan Singh Bisen, aged about 39 years, Caste Halba, Occupation Govt. Servant (Upper Division Teacher-Govt. Middle School Risgaon, Block Nagari District Dhamtari R/o. ViUage-B Sankra, Tahsil Nagari District Dhamtari (CG). ^:2) Jahanjeet Singh Netam, S/o. Shri Samaru Rara Netam, aged about 41 years, Caste Gond, Occupation Govenunent Servant (Upper Division Teacher- Govt. Middle School DugU, Block Nagari District Dhamtari R/o. DugU, Tahsil Nagari Distt Dhamtari (CG). :3) Satish Kumar Rangari, S/o.late Puran Lal Rangari, aged about 35 years, Caste Mahar (SC), Occupation Govemment Servant (Upper Division Teacher- Govt. Middle School Dugli, Block Nagari District Dhamtari R/o. Dugli, TahsU Nagari District Dhamtari (C.G-). VERSUS Respondents/:1) State of Chhattisgarh, Througb Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^\ ^Ss.<fc s^^° r^'^v y^3f^"^ ^.^-^ s,l,'!p^^ |-^gyw»T(iS.»,' '&% Y^-?*:^?,?.' ^^f ^'^''^'_ .:»,'-' 5 ^ :2) Cominissioner Department ofTribal Welfare (C.G.) :3) Assistant Comniissioner Departinent ofTribal Welfare, Dhamtari (C.G.) i ..'*•„>\ WRIT^F^mONVNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFIND!A The Petitioners respectfuUy beg to submit as under :- ly Ki m 1 ^ ^c, r HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS©ARHAT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 5465 of 2006 Petitioners ; Ashok Vumw Bisen <& others Versus Respondents : State of ChhatMsgarh &others W.P.fS) No. 5476 of 2006 Petitioner ; Narad Mdnjhi Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others SB; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Smt. Hcuneeda Siddque, counse! for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Owivedi, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. OR D E R (9th October, 2006) The foltowing order of the Court is passsd by Satish K. AgnShotri, J. 1. By this petition under Art-icle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, tiie petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pcy -rtie increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointments in the light of the decision rendered by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh <S others Vs. State of M.P. & others) dated 31.1.2000. 2. Leamed counsel dppearing for the petitioners placsd on record a copy of the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court- in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur ond others Vs. State of ^ Chhattisgarh & others) and submits that the petitioners are similarly situated, therefore the simifar order may be passed. 3. The present writ pstitions, being W.P.(5) No. 5465/2006 caid W.P.(S) No. 5476/2006 involve similar facts and common question of law. Thus, these petitions are 60109 disposed of by this common order. 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teachers jn the Schoot Education bepartment/Tribal Welfare Department, on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on after completion of two years probation, the petitioners were regularized but they were not given the regular pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Adtninistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similarly situated Upper Division Teachers but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be aliowed to make a representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give simikir treatment to the petitioners and the same pay scate which have been sanctioned to o'ther similar!y situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31.1.2(X)0, to which leamed State counse^ has no objection. 6. Hoiving heard learned counsel for the parties and hming regard to the facts <md circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Couri- the limitect prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners oppears to M% be reasonabte. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to the respondent No. 1, raising al! their grievances and in turn the Re^iondent No.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points rai»d by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the tearned State Administrative Tribunat in O.A.No. 1452/98. 7. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be placed in the record of other one connected , writ petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur