a mat W (W) mumm; mmmi mmW ma mmifwm' Wiananésr (PeTiTion U/A 226 of ConsTiTufion of India) PEI’ITIONER RESPONDENTs Presenf: MnAmH- Kumor Shawna, Advocai'e for +he pefifioner. Mr. MRS. Bha'i'ia, Dy. Gov‘i'. Adv‘ for ihe Sfafe. 03.1 1 .2008 Heard. Vs sinqie Bench; Hum‘ble Mr. Jusfice Dhirendr-a Mishra) WP. Isl No.6052/2008 Ragi'vendra Kumar- Jaiswcd, son of 5hri Ram Kumur' Jaiswal, aged abou’r 43 years, Asst Teacher, Govt Middle SchoaL Dhaur‘abha'l'a, ms? ~ic+ Bélaspur, Chhaffisgarh. 1. Ed'afe Govt of Chhaf‘risgar‘h 'nnr'augh fhe Eecr‘efar’y School Educafion Deparfmenf, A inisfr'y, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, ChhaHisgarh. Districf Educa‘l‘ion Officer Bilaspur', C hha‘l‘fisgarh. E E .lock Educafion Officer, Block Kom, Disfrici' .ilaspur, Chhaf‘risgarh. i By The presen‘i‘ pe‘fii‘ior "the pe‘i’i‘rioner is seeking a direction f0 The respondent au‘rhorii'ies in pay incremem‘s and seniori‘l'y from The doTe of his ini'rioi oppoin‘rmenf in The igh‘r of decision rendened by The MP. Sm‘re Adminisfrofive Tribunoi in CLA. No.2745/89 (Madhukon‘i Vodu and 56 \K‘ \r m§m$ mzoo ‘§qi$ ’ m mmwaaa) mmafgama -. fwmmamwwm war wannégr ‘ m‘hers Vs. 5mm of MP. and o1‘her's) dcd'ed 24.8.1992 and also ‘rhi's Cour-T in WP. (s) No.5976/06, Case of fhe pefifioner is Thu? he was appoim'ed on 1.12.1984 as Depu'l'y Teacher on ‘rhe fixed y scab of Rs.‘300/—. AfTer compleTion of his probation period. he was, re ular'ized buT he was no? given regular pay scale from the da‘ie of his ini ial appoinfmen‘r. O‘i'her simiiariy sifua‘red Teachers moved ‘ihe Sfa‘ie Ad inisi’rafive Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay—scale wherein learned Tri unal vide order dafed 24.8.1992 allowed ihe same. This CoUrT also wh le considering The same issue in WP. (s) No.597'6/06 vide order da d 7.11.2006 direcfed fhe respondenf au‘rhori‘ries' To consider fhe ase of 'i'he pe‘ti‘l‘ioners. The pe'l‘ifioner approached The responden‘i au horifies To accord The same frea‘l'men‘l' as he is also similarly sifuated, bu , 1'he responden‘i’s have no‘r paid any heed. Learned counsel for fhe pe‘i‘i‘l‘ioner submifs fhaf The pei’i‘rioner may be allowed 1'0 make a represen a‘i'ion ‘ro responden‘l' No.1 for giving similar Treai'menf ‘i'o fhe pe‘l‘ifioner d same pay—scale, which has already been sanc‘iioned ‘I’o o‘i'her similarly s Tua‘red feachers on accoum‘ of The order of STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal nd This CourT. Learned for The STaTe as no objecTion if The peTiTion is disposed wiTh a direcTion To The respon enTs To-cons’ider The case of The peTiTioner. .‘tx‘ ‘a ma Ina-<5 (931W) {5" almmrfhw mmm 3mm mmtfwmn $Wané21 ' Accordingiyi The pe‘ii‘ri n is disposed of wi‘ih ‘rhe aforesaid direcfion. Cerfified copy as per rul s. Having heard learned co sei for The par‘ries, having regard To The fads and ci’rcumsfan‘ces of T e case, in fhe considered opinion of This Cour‘rj'he limi'red prayer-mo e by [earned counsel for fhe pefi‘rioner appears 'ro be reasonabie and reforei The peTiTioner is allowed To make a represenm‘rion wifhin a peri d of Two weeks from foday To respondenf No.1 raising a” his grievances and, in furn, respondem No.1 shali decide The said represenm‘i’ion'. in an bjecfive manneri wi‘l'hin a period of eigh‘r weeks from fhe da‘re of receip of such represenmfion offer considering ail The noinfs raised by ‘l'he pe moner and faking Into accoun‘i The orders passed by “rhe Adminisfra'hve Judge r m mm$ ................ . ................. m 200 Ibunal and This CourT. n e