HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTM. J. WRIT PETITIONYS) No. 1802 -^. 1, RESPONDENTS Bharatlal Banjare, S/o Balmukimd Banjare, Aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher Primary School Kotra, Block-Raigarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.J 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Education Departmeat, >.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Public instructions, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Public Instmctions Division, Raigarh (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Block Education Ofiicer Block Raigarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the pS^tioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 28ul ofNIarch, 2007) 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ths petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the iacrements and seniority on the basis ofthe date ofhis initial appointment in the light ofthe decisioa rendered by tfae leamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.2475 of 1998 (MwSvikant Yadu and 56 others vs. State ofM.P. aidothers)24.Q%.l992. 2. ,eamed counsel appearing for the partiesjointly submit that tfae facts and question oflaw involved in the present writ petition is similar to that ofW.P. (S) No. 5784 of2006 (Milap Ram Daharia and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which has been disposed of by this Court by orderdated 27.10.2006. ..-J.. 3. The case ofthe petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, lateron, after completion oftwo years' probation, the petitioner was regularized, but, he was not given the regular pay-scale. Other sinplarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-.scale, wherein learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, allowed the same. The petitioner made several representations to accord the same treatment as he is also similariy situated teacher, bul, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this 4.. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a representation to respondentNo.l to give similar treatment to the petitioner and the same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similariy situated teachers on accounl: of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1-2000, to which leamed counsel for the respondents/State has ao objection. 5. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having regard fc to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, ia fhe opimon ofthis Court, the limited prayer made by learaed counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable, Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to make a representetion within a period oftwo weeks from today to respondent No.l, raising all his ^rievances and, in tum, respondentNo.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of30 days from the date ofreceipt of such represenlation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1452 of 1998, and ifthe petitioner stands on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Original r Application No.1452 of 1998,then he be also sanctioned fhe same pay-scale and seniority, 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed ofwith the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotti Judge Andt