w‘ / Ku’. Prabhavatl Koushik Daughter of Shrl D.R.Koushlk, aged about 33 years, Occupation- Asst. Teacher, Dlstt. Janjglr—champa (C.G.) state of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Ralpur (C.G.). Director Publlc Instructlon, Ralpur (C.G.) Dlstrlct Education Officer, Dlstt.—Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Biock Education Officer, Nawagarh, Dlstt.— Janjgir Champa (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 W O THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUAN E OF APP OPRIATE WRITS I ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS AS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIQATURE, AT §ILASPUR (C.G.} m E_(§) gg G‘¥i$ (gggg i0 Govt.Glris H.s. Schooi “. N .r0” ...... 5:WChampa, Block Nawagarh, D .u ##f DEEMED FIT. . XI-HC-78 Z $ , WW,W¥W§,W WWWJK'KSJ.£.%93” wzooc mmwmrx india‘ the petitioner seeks a drection to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority Ion he basis of the date of her initial appointment in the light ef the ecision rendered by the iearned State Admintstrative Tribunal, Jab ipur in Originai Application No. 1452i1998 (Harish Chandra st gh and others Vs. State of MP. and others) dated 31 .‘l .2000 2. Learned counsel appearng for the petitioner placed on record copy of the order dated-9th ,Oc ber 2006 passed by this Court tn Writ Petition (S) Nof5473/2006 (R kesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh' and o hers) and in Writ Petition (S) No. S4?4!2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and submite that the petitioner is milarly‘situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. -3. The case of the petiti ner is that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Soho l Education Department on probation for a period of two years with t e fixed salary. However, later on. after completion of two years’ proba ion, the petitioner was regularized but, she was not given the reguiar pay scale from the date of her initial appointment. Other similarly' situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jaba pur for regular paynscale, wherein teamed Tribunal vide order da ed 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The P.T.O. i mam WW§WW mmm m m m m a:aw%wsn%21 11.12.2006 Shri Ashwani Shukia, le ned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sunita Jain, iearne P.L. for the Statefrespondents. By this petition under rticies 226f227 of the Con$titution XI—HC—78 @ EW,WE,W Inn-mm . k1.<z'.".§§/...‘.ff§. a1 200£ mm (W)