m mn—im ”. m 200 ma can; (W) anaa wW am wastiwm mmmmu mm‘#%m aiWanésT Sin le Bench: Hon'bl Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishr‘a m No.6083/2008 (Pefi‘rion U/A 226 of ConsTifu’rion of India) PETITIONER Radhes hyam Chafur‘vedi, Aged abouf 51 year, S/o Shri Jageshwar' Prasad Chafurvedi, Village- Navagc on, PosT-Kurda, Tehsil Bememr‘a, Disf‘r. Durg ((2.6) Vs RESPONDENTs 1. Sfa’re Govt of Chhm‘fisgar‘h Through: Secre’rar‘y, Tribal & EducaTion Depar‘rmen‘r, D.K 5. Bhawan, Dish‘. Raipur (C.6.). 2. DIS"’r Educa‘rion Officer, Education Disff. Beme’rara, Dish‘. Durg (C.G.) 3. Block Educafion Officer, Bemefara, Disf‘r. Durg (C.G.) Present Mr. Somkan’r Verma, Advoca‘re for The pefh‘ioner. Mrs. Smifa Ghai, Panel Lawyer for The Sfm‘e. 04. 1 1 .2008 Heard. By fhe present pe’rifion ‘rhe pefh‘ioner is seeking a direch‘on To ’rhe respondenf aufhorifies ’ro pay cnnual incremenfs and seniority from The dafe of his ini‘rial appointmenf infhe lighf of decision rendered by The M.P. STaTe AdminisTraTive Trib nal in O.A. No.2745/89 (MadhukanT Yadu and 56 oThers Vs. STaTe of M.P and oThers) daTed 24.8.1992 and also by This Courf in W.P. (s) No.6681/0 . ma a5! main; mmam mmW 311%31 mm'#'%@m aiwsnési is ’rha’r he was appoinfed as Assismm‘ sale of Rs.500/-. Af‘rer' complefion of ized, however, regulor pay scole from ’rhe m mqi$ 111,200 ma W (W) si’ruafed Teachers aggrieved by moved The Sfafe Adminisfrafiv pay—scaie from fhe dafe of ini‘ vide order dafed 24.8.1992 a considering fhe same issue in 7.12.2006 direcfed fhe respon fhe pefifioners of Thaf pe’rifio fhe responden’r aufhorifies ’ro similarly si’ruafed buf the respor Learned counsel for The p be allowed To make a represe giving similar TreafmenT To The already been sancTioned To oThe The order of The STaTe AdminisT Learned for fhe STaTe hc is no objecTion if The peTiTion is disposed wiTh a direcTion 1‘0 The responde nTs To consider case of The peTiTioner. -21. Case of The pefifioner Teacher on ’rhe fixed pay s probation period he was regular date of his inifiol appoim‘men‘r has nof been given To him. O’rher similar-ly The aforesaid acTion of The respondenTs, e Tribunal, Jabalpur for granT of regular rial appoinTmenT wherein learned Tribunal llowed The same. This CourT al50 while W.P. (s) No.6681/06 vide order daTed ienT auThoriTies‘ To consider The case of a. The peTiTioner herein also approached accord some freaTmenT as he is also idenTs have noT paid any heed. ieTiTioner submiTs Thaf The peTiTioner may nTaTion before The respondenT No.1 for peTiTioner and same pay-scale, which has " similarly siTuaTed Teachers on accounT of raTive Tribunal and fhis CourT. W mq-i-m m 200 mamm manéermfas mmm met Wam'Ii'wmR $Wanéet a}? In view of The above submissions of learned counsel for ’rhe parfies, fhis pefifion is disposed of wh‘h Iiberty to the petitioner to make detailed represen‘rafion alon9 wi‘i‘h cem‘ified copy of ’rhis order fo respondent No,1 raising all his grievances, r represenfa’rion being made, Thi wifhin a period of eighf Wei representation, after consideri and taking into account the ordi and this Court. Certified copy as per rule U! i ’aised in this petition, and on such i respondent No.1 shall decide the same aks from the date of receipt of the 1g oll the points raised by the petitioner :rs passed by the Administrative Tribunal Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge snow m (W)