c^[^t-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. $ '^ 8' /2006 PETITIONER :: / Ishwari Prasad Ratre, S/o. Shri Jethuram Ratre, aged about 37 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Chhatrawas Adhikshak, Simga. Block Simga, District Raipur, R/o. Anusuchit Jati Balak Chhatravas, Simga, Block Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:1) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through \h^y./ ''/<<F-vy-"' \':--'' ^^y ,w-^.' ^y/' <^<^./' ^^•" RECEIVED-COPY [cL.^J^1^ G RK to A. G. BILASPUB \f-^-~cT Secretary, Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) . Assistant Coinmissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) :3) The Block Education Officer Sl-o'ifl'aL District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "D ^ 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners ptaced on record a copy of the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (Nemsingh Thakyr ond others Vs. State of Chhnttis9arh & others) and subrnits the petitioners are similarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The present writ petitions, being W.P.(s) No. 5137/2006 and W.P.(s) No. 5138/2006 involve similar focts and common question of law. Thus, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Tne casesof the petitioners are thot they were appointed as Upper Division Teachers in the School Educotion Departmerit on probation fpr a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on after completion of two years probation, thepetitioners were regularized but they were not gwen the regular pay scale. Other sinnilor'ty' 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 petitioners mcda several representations to accord the saine treatment as they are atso similarly situated Upper Oivision Teachers but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 5, Learned counsel for the petitioner-s submits that the petitioners may be allowed to makea representation to the Respondent No. 1 To give siinitar treatment to the petitioners and thesame pay scale which have been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order 6f 1+ie State Administrative Tribunal dated 31.1.2000, to which tearned State counsel has noobjection. ^ 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and havin9 regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court the limited praysr made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be "easonable. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from todgy to the respondent No. 1, raising all their 9rievances and in turn the Respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in on objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering cll the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order datec! 31.1.2000 passed by thelearned State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, ond if tiie petitionsrs stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then they be also sonctioned the same pay sccle and seniority. 7. These writ petitionsareaccordingly 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/- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge Babhi ^^^ ^^^S^L^T