.& SinsE^Bench ^('C70 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WMT PETITION (St No^& 6^ /2006 PETITIONER ^f^ ^v;'<cy::\^ ^•^•\t^'-'- .--A'.^--'' c1^'' »\y ^' v^y ^- Ramgopal Nagwanshi S/o. Shri Arjun Singh Nagwanshi, aged about 36 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Prunaiy School Devri. Block Chhura, District Raipur, R/o. Behind Shitla Mandir, Chhura, Block Chhura District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Assistant Conunissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) :3) The Block Education Officer Chhura, Dista-ict Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF TODIA RESPONDENTS -G<- ,<> 8's HI6H COlfltT OF CHHATnSSARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. 5059/2006 Petitioner : Dinesh Kumar Lahri Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt'isgarh &others W. P.(S) No. 5058/2006 Petitioner ; Shiv Kumar Sayakwad Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh <& others W. P.(S) No. 5062/2006 Petitioner ; Pradeep Kumar Jatwar Versus Respondents : State of Chhatl-isgarh &others W. P.fSl No. 5063/2006 Petitioner : faungopal Nagwanshi Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh &others And W. P.(S) No. 5089/2006 Petitioner ; Sukalha &as Khunte Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgai+i &others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy ©ovemment Advocate for the respondents/State. OR DER ith (l8tn September, 2006) The following order of the Court is possed by Satish K. ^gnihotri, J. 1. By these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Gonstitution of India ^ the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of 1+ieir initiat appointments in the light of the decision rendered by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) dated 31.1.2000. ^ 2. Lefluned counsel appearing for the petH'ioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by -this Court- in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur and others Vs. State of Chhatt'isgarh &. o-thers) and submits that the petitioners are similarly situated, therefore the similar order moy be pas^d. 3. The present writ petitions, being Writ Petitions No. 5059/2006, 5058/2006, 5062/2006, 5063/2006 and 5089/2006, involve identical facts and common question of law. Thus, these petitions are being disposed of by -this common order. 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the School Educotion Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on after completion of two years tenure the petitioners were regularized but they were not given the regular pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scate, wherein leamed Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they ore also similarly situated Assistant Teachers but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus,this petition. 5. Learned counse! flippearing for the State/respondents submits that the difference between the Upper Oivision Teacher and Assistant Teacher is that the fixed salary of the Assistant Teacher was Rs. 1200/- p.m. and that of Upper Division Teacher was Rs. 1400/- p.m. The process of selection and period of probation was one and the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same poy scale which have been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on the basis of the order dated 31.3.2000 of the State Administrative Tribunal, to which leamed State counsel has no objection. 7. Hwing heard leamed counsel for the part-ies and having regard to the facts and circumstiances of the case, in the opinion of this Court the limited prayer made by leamed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are altowed to make a representation within a period 6f two weeks from toctay to the respondent No. 1, roising all their grievonces ond in turn the Respondent No.l shall decide the saiid representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then they be also sanctioned the same pay scale and seniority. 8. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of wi-tfi the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur S9