BI-nC^ fe?ias ^ C/Fi av 2-— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W. P. (S) No. / 2007 PETITIONER Y.^^.... ^^.-l^-" .,.-••" ^y^, ....-•^3' ^>v' Tej Prakash Bhardwaj, S/o. Shri Jagnnath Prasad Bhardwaj, aged about 38 year,s, Assistant Teacher (Science), Govt. Hr. Sec. School - Nagarda, Block - Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^" ^c. k'A.'-1 ^^-cofl c^T'/'r'1 ^^&T^ c^> 1. State of Chhattisgrh, Through The Secretary Department of Education D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur 3. District Education Officer, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT. WRITS, DIRECTION ETC. TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. XI-HC-78 an^rqirf^TW (raT3n^ra>H Sopa" y *11*1MI SKtTTcft 7^ '<<i<iici'!i, CTrflwis, Riinitfy .^W^.^4//&:}_ >4|ch ••••••'••"•••••"•••y^q- 2 ^200 an^i'iiqcn (^ciI^q^tT) ?TBRKHf?cT3n^T 22-1-2007 Mr. Manoj Mishra, Mr. P.TI|iivari Somkant Verma, counsel "l|iivari, Mr. A.S.Rstfput and K4r. f|»rthepefittoner(s). Mr. Sushil Dubey, Gove|mment Depufy Govemment Adv|ocate Lawyer for the State/respohdents. t>i<iFci<l1i ii*<CTTfftec^'<Ri*ei< ^sri^Tsn^r Advocate, Mr. SaUsh Gupta, and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panal counsel appearing fcr the parties, the lof. \t Wr»PsUtion (3.) NoJ32S of 2007 in Wrth the consent of leameld matter is heard finally and dispos^d Common order dtetated i< open Court, passed separately. A copy of this order be plEJcsd on the record of the conrwcted writ petitions. Sd/- - . SatishK.Agnihofri Juc^e P.T.O. HIGIUSfllURT^GHHAITiaeAfitlALBaASPUB SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISHK. A6NIHOTRI. J. c^.. WRIT PETITK3N (S.t N0.326 OF SQQ7 PeUtioners Respondents Versus Suraj Pratap Singh and anether State af ChhatUsgarh andBthera WRTT PETITION (S.l N0.326 OF 2897 Petiiioner Smt. Sumedha Tiwari Versus Respondente State of ChhaUsgarh and others VWilT PETITION (S.»N0.329 OF 20ar Petitioners Dwarika Peasad Kant and othere .A^ Veraus Respondents The State of Chhrtti^arh and anottier WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.340 OF 2087 Petitioner Respondenls Versus Ganesh Ran Khunte State of Chtiatti»^irhand otheis r WRIT PETn-ION (S.l N0^41 0F 2B07 Petitioner R^pondents vereus T^ Prakash Bhardwa} State of ©hhatfegartiand others WRIT PETmON (S.) N0.348 OF 2007 c. <;> PetWoner Resoondents yersus Ram Keshwar Ram State of Chhatli^arh and othws PetiB'oner Respondents PeUtioners Responctents WRIT PETITION (S.t N0.351 OF 2807 Sanjeev Kumar Tiviari State <rf Chhatti^arh and ethere WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.364 OF 2067 Lakhan Lal Kashyapand othere versus State GovemiBent of Chhirttisgartiand othere Present : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Mr. P.Thwari, Mr. A-S.Rajput and Mr. Somkant Verma, counsel forttre petifioner(s). Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocale, Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemment Advocate and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyerfor theState/respwtdents. (Passed on 22"11 Day of Jsmuary, 2@07) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the ConsBtdion of tndia, ttie petttionere seek a direction to the respondents to pay the incremente and senkwity on the bs»is <rf the dato of their iniUaf appointment in the light of the deci^on rendered by Uie leamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Originat Apptication No.1452 ®f 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and olhers vs. State of M.P. snd othefs) dated 31-1-2000 and Original Applicatton No.2745<rf 1989 (MsKSwkant Yadu and 56 <rihws vs. StaisafM.P. andother^dated 24-8-1992. 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the partiea jointly submit that the facls and quesUon of law invoh/ed in the present bateh ®fwrit pelitions are similarto ttiatof Writ Pefflion (S.) No.5784 <rf 2006 (Mf^o Ram Daharaa and athws vs. State of CMiaWsga^i anct othwsi, which has been disposed of by thls Court by order dated27-18-2OT6. 3. The cases of the petiUoners are ttiat ttiey wera af^aointBd as Teacher in the Schoot Educatton Department cn pnAation with the fixed satary. However, later on, after compteUon of perlod of prcAation, the petiUoners were regularized, but, they were not given the reguter pay-scale. Other similarly situatal tMchers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scato, wherein feamed Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, allowed the same. The prtWonws made several representaUons to accord the same treatment as Siey are also similarly situated teaehers. There was ne response from the Govemment. Thus, ttiese petitions. — ~ 4 ^f. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petMonws submit that the petiUoners may be altowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give simitar treabnent to the petiUoners and the same pay-scate which has been sanclioned to other siraiterly situated teartiers on account of ttie order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1- 2000, to which leamed counsel appearing for the Stete/respondenb have no objecBon. 5. Having heard learned coun^l appearing tor the parti® and having regard to the facts and circumstences of ttie case, in the opinton of this Court, thelimited prayer made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners appears to be rea^able. Therefore, the petiBonere are allowed to make a representaUon wtthin a period of Iwo weeks from today to respondent Ne.1, raising all their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide ttie sald representatton in sn objecUve manner withln a period of 30 ilays ftom the date of rweipt of such repr^entaUon, after considering all ttie pointe raised by peUtioners and taking into account the Mder dated 31-1-200) passed by the leamed Slate Administrsdive Trilxinal in Otiginal Appliesrtion No.1452 <rf 1998, and if ttre petitioners stand on ttie same fooUn^, as the petitioners in the Original Apptication No.1452 <rf 1998, then Uiey be also sanctioned thesame pay-scate and sentortty. 6. The writ petitions are accordin^y elisposed of with the aforesaid direcBon. No order as to costs. <- 7. A copy of this order be (riaced on Uie record <rf the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge