Writ Fetiiion $31 No. 2350 of 2oo§ 1) Kesnar Smgh Netam Sm {Shri Wap Smgh Petmoners NPtam age abaut 3° ygars Pnmary Sr‘hocl r<napars, Diatt Dwg( ) \ Seuk Ram Sahu 8m Shri Dunit Ram Sahu aged abouf 38 years 9 .....ary Schoo! Mungvay, Db? DU g ‘C 3} NJman Kam Sanu S /o S I Daya Ram Sanu aqn abow 4O year$ Pnma I achooi Dounadh (Navagamh uiau Dura (CO‘ i ‘ 4) Jagmohan Lal Kurre Sio Shn Fudruram Kme Agn ghout 39 wears Pnmanl School GopaipLr eJevra}, Dist‘ Burg (CG) 5) Shatruhan La§ Khande! Slo. Shr§ Dukh‘i Ram Khande, Age about 4Q years, Primary SchoeL Dnourabhata, ‘Navagarh‘ Distt Durg (CG). 6) Ku.. Sushiia Tandan (Now Dehre), Dio. Shr‘; Jeei Ram Tandan, Age about 38 years, Primary Schoot C‘nakiakunda, Distt. Burg (CG). 7) Suqam Chane Joshl b Io Shn TuiSI Ram Josh) Pr'mary School Age abgut 37 years BhaEsamuda, Disft‘ Durg (CG Versus 1) State Govt. of Chhattisgar‘n, through Secretary, Education & Triba! Department, D.K.So Bhavan, Raipor (CG; 2‘} District Education Officar, Distt‘ Durg (CG). 3) Distr‘sct Education Officer, Bemetara (CG). 4) Biock Education Officer} Navagarh {CG}. Respondents Etesent: (Writ Petition under Amme 228 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bié Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 8m Aiay Shi'ivastava, icounsei for the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate “forwt‘rje $tate.» emu ORDER \ {Passeii on za'“ giay of Amh 2mg} i With consent of iearn‘eci counsei apearing for both the patties, t‘ne matter is heard finany. SPUR E p 2) Learnegi counse5 appearing for the petitioners as we}; as for the Stateirespondents jointiy submit that the question of law invoived in the present writ petition is simitar to that of in Writ Petition (S) No.1463 of 2006 (Aeman Jain Vs. the State Government of Chhattisgarh and another) which was disposed of vide order dated 10:“November, 2006 (Annexure P15). Learned counsel further submit thatthis petition may be disposed of in the same terms. i i 3) in view of the above stated submissions made by learned counsei for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e, the petitioners are aiiowed to make representation within a period of two weeks from today to the K respondent No.1; raising aii their grievances and, in turn, the respondent No.1 shaii decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period or" 3O days from the date of receipt such representation, and considering aii the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the iearned State Administrative Tribunal in OANQ 1452 0f 1998 and if the petitioners stand on the same feotings, as the petitioners in O,A.Noii452 of $98, then they be aiso sanctioned. the same pay-scaie and seniority. No order as to costs i Sdl- i Satish K. Agnihotri L .Judge i