CFImZ, 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITIONJS) No. é 65% /2006 Ramsevak Sai Paikra, aged about 52 / years, son of Shri Dilsai Paikra, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School — Patrapali, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through — V Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare District Jashpur (CG) RESPONDENTS 3/» w” W%T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE wi ” CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: g XI-HC-78 EW,WE§,%W . w f($2..€z.<..sT/.. a1 zooé '3 Wm (13W) WWW WWW WW§WW WWW ‘ $aq%tr3n%&1 05.1 2.2006 Shri A.N. Bhakta, iearned cm. nsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, learned PAL. for the State/respondent. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to t e respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the da e of his initiai appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the I arned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 2745/1 989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and others) dated 24.8.1992 2. Learned counsel appearing or the petitioner placed on record a copy of the order dated 9‘“ Octob r 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisg rh and others) and submits that the petitioner is similarly situated, theref re, the similar-order may be passed. 3. The case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Schooi Education D partment on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. Ho ever, iater on, after completion of two years’ probation, the petitioner was regularized but, he was not given the ' regular pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur f r regular pay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.19 2 allowed the same. The petitioner made several representations to ac ord the same treatment as he is also P.T.O. i XI—HC—78 W W , W , W Wm (W) WWW ammm WWW WW§WW §;a;1%n311%21 ,A within a period of two weeks fromt vgrievances and, in turn, respo ier within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and taking'i passed by the learned State Admini No. 2745/1989. similarly situated, but, the respondex petition. Having heard learned counsi the facts and ciroumstances of the limited prayer made by learned co reasonable. Therefore, the petition 5. 4. be allowed to make a representati‘ treatment to the petitioner and same to other similarly situated teachers Administrative TribUnaI dated 24.8: respondent/State has no objection. al for the parties and having regard to case, in the opinion of this Court, the Ansel for the petitioner appears to be r is allowed to make a representation day to respondent No.1, raising all his dent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manr Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may in to respondent No.1 to give similar pay-scale which has been sanctioned on account of the order of the State 992, to which learned counsel for the l The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 6. 7. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. its have not paid any heed. Thus, this nto account the order dated 24.8.1992 strative Tribunal in Original Application