1 t.: •^b^r' ^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. •:)s'f:f- 72003 / PETITIONERS .A^'" jeS^- ^^^ ^•y> 'y .^, '^ v^^^'^ ^^^ 5. 6. Nemsingh Thakur, son ofShri Beniram Thakur, aged about 34 years, occupation - U.D.T. Govemment H.S.S. Mangchawa, Distt. Durg, Tribal Welfare Department, resident of Tilda, PO Tamora, Tah. Gunderdehi, Via Anda, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Shatmghan Lal Dhurandliar, son of Shri S.R. Dhurandhar, aged about 35 years, occupatioa - Upper Division Teacher, Tribal Welfare Department Resident Pingal Distt. Durg. (Chhattisgarh) \ Udit Ram Deshlahore, son of Shri Dashrath Deshlahore, aged about 34 years, occupation U.D.T. Tribal Welfare Department, Govenunent H.S.S. Sahgaon, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Dilip Ram Devhare, son of Shri Jhaggar Singh Devhare, aged about 36 years occupation U.D.T. Resident Govemment H.S.S. Sahgaon, Distt. Durg (Chhattsigarh) Shri Kailash Chndra, Mahobia, son of Shri Motilal Mahobia, aged about 39 years, occupation U.D.T. Tribal Welfare Department, Govemment Middle School Gorka Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) resident block Dandilohara, Distt. Durg (CG) Raghunath Singh Maravi, son of Shri Kushal Singh, aged about 38 years, occupation U.D.T. School Education Department, Govemment H.S. School Koshmandi, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ~~T (^ RESPONDENTS AdA-fU.uU' ^A f^V ^r.i^ ^ 4<o^ VERSUS 1. / 2. 3. State ofChhattisgrh, through : Sc^ I ^}- Secretary, Department of (Higher) Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Commissioner, Publication and Instmctions, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Vy^ WRIT PETITION ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT OF CERTIQRARI / MANDAMUS i^«£ a»ina— '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2577 of2CX)3 Petitioner: Nemsmgh Thakur aiid ofhers Versus Respondents: State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers ^''s-^^-^^ ^^^^^^ Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnthotri. Sm.t. Uiiia Patel, counsel for fhe petitioner. Srat. Anj'u Ahuja, Deputy Goveraxaent Advocate for fhe Respondents. ORAL ORDER (23rd March, 2006) The foUowmg order offhe Court was passed by Satlhsll K. Agaihotri, J. 1. By fhis petition under Article 226/227 dffhe Constitution of India fhe petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the iacrciiients aad seniority on fhe basis of fhe date of their initial appoiatments io. the Ught of the decision rendered by the leamed State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur m O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh & ofhers Vs. State of M.P. & ofhers) dated 31.1.2000, O.A.No. 802/98 (Akhilesh Mishra & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ofhers) and O.A.No. 991/98 (Ramayan Prasad Dwivedi & others Vs. State of M.P. & others). 2. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners placed on record a copy of fhe order dated 6.4.2005 passed by fhis Court m Writ PeUtion No. 1890/2003 (Chhatdsgarh Shikchak Sangh Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh & others) and submits fhat fhe petitioners arc simUarly situated, tliercfore fhe simflar order inay be passed, 3. The case of fhe petitioners is fhat fhey were appoiated as Upper Division Teachers in fhe School Education Departraent on j . ..; , ^s^' BlIiBg^^-, •-^^?-- probation for a period oftwo years with fhe fixed salary. However, later on after coinpletion of two years teuure fhe petitioners were regularized but they were not being given fhe regiilar pay scale. Ofher similarly situated teachers nioved the State Adixiiaistrative Tribiiaal, Jabalpur for regular pay scale, whereui leamed Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 aUowed fhe same, The petitioners made sever^l representations to accoid the saaie treatnient as fhey are also similarly situated Upper Division Teachers but fhe respondents have not paid aay heed, fherefore fhey are forced to file fhis petition. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioiiers subiaits that fhe petitioners may be aUowed to make a representation to ffae Respondent No. 1 to give sixiiilar treatiaent to the petitioners and fhe sacie pay scale which have been saactioned to ofher suuilarly situated teachers ou accoiint of fhe order of fhe State Admmistrative Tribunal dated 31.1.2000, to which leamed State counsel has no objection. 5. Havmg heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aiid having regard to fhe facts aad circuiastances of fhe case, ia fhie opiaion of this Court fhe limited prayer inade by leamed counsel for fhe petitiouers appears to be reasonable. Therefore, fhe petitioners are aUowed to miake a representation wifhin a period of two weeks from. today to fhe respondent No, 1, raisiag all fheir grievances aiid in. tum. fhe Respondeat No.l shaU. decide fhe said rcpresentation ia an objective manner withia a penod of30 days firom the date ofreceipt of such representation, after considering all fhe points raised by fhe petitioners aad takuig in.to account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the leamed State Admiaistrative Tribuiial in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if ttie petitioners staad 011 fhe same footiags, as the petitioners in the O.A. No, 1452/98 fheu fhey be also saactioned the same pay scale aad seniority. 6. With fhe direction aforcsaid, fhe petition stands disposed ofjBmally. No order as to costs, Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur ^^^^^ Ste^'^.M. ?^-;^^'^