iN THE HIGH CGURT 6i: JUEICATU‘FIE Al BiLAhr’UH gHHAI ibbAHi—n §iugla mum; WWT r§ETiTi§N NO Ji§4* fit:- 2GG5 PETiTiaNm \ M VJ)“ NIRANJAY KUMA'R PANDEY 60 w ‘4, S70 S‘Hm DENESH PANDE‘Y‘ gv . g , v w? we“ w AGED H%CDT 33 _ vtARS _ 6AA GéHLS PRIMA§Y (If RESPONDENT T. STATE 6F CHHATTISGARH aUnn?U~\u a-\ m&r=}1-n l 51—Ma— AnuN LIE’r’ h Mtm Un BHmI'AN, RNPUR (CG) [J\ EIST'Fii-CT E§UC§TEGW§i GFF.CEE BILASPU(C.G) ‘ELG‘CK ESiECi‘AWfJN GFFICER BILHA, DISTT — BILASPUR (CG) F)A wasT FETiTiQN UNDER Aa THE CQNsm LA _ V ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 154/2005 Pefi'rianer : Nimnjay Kumar Pandey Versus Respondems ' state of Chhqftisgarh & o1hers SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihah'i, J Shri Dhirendm Mishrn, counsei for 1'he pe‘ri‘r‘loner. Shri V. V. S. Murfy, Depufy Advoaafe 62mm for me responden'rs/Sfafe. r O R D E R (Passed on 1M5 15*" December, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agniho‘l'r‘i. J. . By 1he9? pzfition under Article 226/227 of ‘rhe Consfi‘tufion of India fhz pe'ri‘rioner seeks a direc'rion 'ro fhe respondem's 1o gram reguinr pay scuie, incremenfs and seniorHy on The basis of 'rhe da‘re of his initial appoinimenf in fhe iighi of 141a decision rendered by ihe learned Sfafe Adminisfmfive Tribunal; Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh 6i ofhers Vs. Sfafe of MP. d ofhers) dcied 31.1.2000. . Learned counsel appearing for fine pe‘i'i'rioner submifs 'Hm'r ‘i‘he pefi‘i‘ioner was appoini'ed on she post of Assisfant Teacher vide order dafed 1.7.1995 (Annexure P/l) on probation for o period of fwo years on ‘i‘he fixed pay of Rs. 1200/-. Af'rer completion of The probation period fhough 'rhe petitioner has been paid salary in accordance wifh the regular pay scale bu? for ‘rhe probafion period he was no? paid 'rhe benefi? of regular pay scale and increments em, as is granfed 1'0 ofher similarly situated persons. . Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 23. 3. zoos passed by this Com in writ Pention’No. 2577/2003 (Nemsingh _ Thakur and whet-s Vs. Sfafe of Chharrisgarh & ofhers) and wbmifs fhaf 1ha pefifioner is sim'ilnriy sifuq'red, fherefore fhe similar arder may be passed. . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may bz allowed 'lo make a represenfu'rion f0 fhe Respondzm' No. 1 1’0 give similar freafmen‘r 1o fhe petitioner and fhe same pay scale which have been sanctionedl‘l'o other similarly sifuafed Teachers on ‘ihe basis of The order da'l'ed 31.3.2000 of fhe S'la‘le Adminisfrafive Tribunal, to which learned Sfa'le counsel has no objecfion. . Having heard learned counSel for the parties and having regard to the fads and circumsfances of 1he case, in 'lhe opinion of 1his Cour? The Iimi'red prayer made by learned counsel for fhe pe'rifioner appears fo be reasonable. Therefore, 'rhe pe'ri'lioner is allowed 1'0 make a represenfafion within a period of fwo weeks from foday fo fhe responden'r No. 1, raising all his grievances and in mm ‘rhe Respondenf No.1 shall decide 'l'he said representation in an objecfive manner wi'thin a period of 3O days from fhe dafe of receip‘r of such represen'fafion, affer considering all fhe poin'is raised by fhe pefifioner and Taking info account fhe order dafed 31.1.2000 passed by 'lhe learned 5fa+e Adminisfrafive Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if fhe pefi'l'igner stand on 1he same footings, as ‘ihe pefifioners in fhe 0.A. No. 1452/98 then he be also granted the same benefits. . This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Thokur No order as to costs. a Sd/- l , Satish K. Agnihotri" Judge