itLAseuj <t Petition (S) No.5812 'oT 2008 Petitioners £> Ramakant Sharma, aged 51 years, S/o. Late Shri Dehra Prasad Sharma, Assistant Teacher, Govt. PrimarySchool, 'amer Para, Tahsii Dhamdha, District Durg(CG). Baidau prasadi Chandrakar, aaed 52 years, S^p. Late Shri Bhuwan Lai Chandrakar, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middie Schoot, Ahiwara, Tahsii, District Karrta Prasad Nishad, Aged 52 years, S/o. Shri Baisakhuram Nishad, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi, Ghontha, Dhamdha, District Durg (GG). Mjrendra Singh Sahu, aged 50 yeare, S.'o. Shri Tha." Singh^ Sahu, Asslstsnf Teacher, Govt; Bhani Higher Sec. "Schooi, Arjunda Tahsii, District Durg (CG). ." . • Mohan Lain Sirmbur, aged 55 years, S/o. Late Shri Sukuidas Sis-rnour.Upper Division Teacher, Govt. High. Sec. School, C-harbha'ia, Tahsll, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Sagar Das Gehine, aged 53 years, S/o. Shri Laia Ram Gehine, Assistsnt Teacher, Sheriivashwar Das N. Pa. Higher Ssc. Schoot, DsstricS Rajnandgaon (CG). Puranek Ram Sahu, aged 50 years, S/o. Shri, Meiuo Ram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Govi:. MiddSe Schooi, Kalav/a, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Saria Sy/amkar, aged 53years,D/o.Shri Kish'un Lal Soni, Assistant Teacher, Middie School, Jatapara, Kharagardh, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Meva Lal Bhombho'a, aged 50 years, S/o. Shri Nat •hel Ram Bhombhola, Assistant Teacher, Govt. IViiddie Schooi Kumrda, Dist. RajnandgaQn (0(3?. 10 Heam La! Chatun/edi, Agsd 59 years, S/o. Shri Ram Prasad AssistantTeachsr, Primary Schooi, Paretota,^ District Rajnandgaon (CG). ; 11. -Jaii Lal Singh, Choure, aged 59::years, S/o. Shri Anmoie Singh Choyire, Head Antranggaon, Dlstrict Rajandgaon (CG). Allim IKhan, aged 42 vears. S/o. Shri Munuwar Khan, Assistant Teacher, Go'/t. PrimarySchool, Chhuiyadongaiy, Disfrict lirtti-}:—i -1- Res 13. Bodh Rai Sirmour, aged 58 years, S./o. Shri SuM, Das Sirmour, Assistani Teacher, Govt. Higher Sec. Schooi, versus The State Governmsnt of Ch through the Secretary, Schoo! Departmenf Ministry; D.K.S. USVeii 1 Director of Public Instructions, Stste of Chhattisgarh, Penston Bsda, Raipur (CG). 'he District Education Officer, Durg 3. 4. The District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon (CG). {Writ Petition under Articie 226 of Gohstttution of india) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Mr. Somkant Verma, counsei for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. (Passed on this 18"' day of October, 200) consent of 'Cli i.ICT'Ot ^11C ' ' iOU^Si heard ftnallv. 2) By t'nis petition under Articie 228/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the K"!^' aht of the decision rendered by the learned State AdministraSive Trjbuna!, Jabalpur in Origma! AppSication No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 58 others Vs. State of M.P. and others) dated 24-8-1992. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners piacad reliance on the order dated 9 October 2006 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (S) No.5473/2008 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Pstition (S) No. 5474.'2006 (Jal ^ Nath Bajpai Vs. Stste of Chhattisgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is slmiiariy situated, therefore, the simiiar order may be passed. 3) The case of the petitioners is th were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the School Education Department on probation for a Deriod of one vear with the fixed saiar»i. However, iater on. after compietion of probation period, the petitionsrs were regutarized but they v/ere not given the regular pay scale from the date oftheir inltial appointment. Other similariy sltuated teachers movsd the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur for reguiar pay scaie; wherein iearned Trsibunal vide ordsr dated 24-8-1992 ailowed the same. The petitioners made severai representations to accord the same treatment as they are aiso sinnilarly situated, but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 4) Learned counse! for the petitioners submits that the petitioners iive b-esn may be ailowed to. make a representation to respondent No.1 t( simitar treatment to the pstitioners and same pay scaie which has sanctioned to other simiiariy situated teachers on aceount ofthe the Staie Administrative Tribunai dated 24-8-1992, to which ieamed counsel for the respondents/State has no objection. 5) Havlng heard learned counsel for the parties and haying regard to the facts and circumstances ofths case. in the ooinion ofthis Court, the iirfilted prayer made by leamed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonabSs. Therefore, the petitioners are aiiowed to make :a representation within a period of tv/o weeks from today to respondent No.1 raising all their grievances and in turn respondent No.1 shal decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 's.r' -4. »^V •^SCtys 'from the date of receipt of such rspresentation, after conslderi 1 ^ Raiii al! the points raised by ttie petitioners and teking into account the dated 24-8-1992 passed by the learned Siate Administrative Tribunai in Original Application No.2745/1983. 6) The writ Detition is accordingiv disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. ———- ;.SdA SatishK.Agi Jiidge s