;^ •• -A ? •"> E.^S^ SiV^/sS IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. 6910_ ^2006 PETITIONER •••\u> ^ RESPOND^NT.S-'^.'-"^].. ./•"^3" s>' Kamil Tirky, aged about 49 years son of Shri Fulchand Tirky, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School Kotanpani, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Jashpur (C.G.) WR£T£ETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI^J, WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.69S2 OF 2006 PetitLoners Shubhash Chandra Venna and others yersus Respondente Stateof Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6967 OF 2006 Petitionere Smt. Jyoteshwari Rao and another versus Resoondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITfON fS.) N0.6968 OF 2006 Petitionere Kumari Rampyari Dheewar and another versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6969 OF 2006 Petitioner Dinesh Prasad Shanna versys Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another 2 WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6970 OF 2006 Petitioner Kamil Tirky versys Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.6971 OF 2006 Petitioner Respondents versus Bal Chand Sahu State of Chhattisgarh and others VWtlT PETITION (S.l N0.6979 OF 2006 Petitioner Maniram Sahu versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (5.1 N0.6980 OF 2006 Petitioners Pranadhar Lahare and others versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6981 OF 2006 Petitioners Sunder La! Sonwani and others versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6982 OF 2006 Petitioners Narottam Patel and others versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6983 OF 2006 Petitioners Resoondents versys Ramkrishna Sahu and others State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITiON (S.) N0.6984 OF 200S Petitionere Kaushal Prasad Patel and others versus Respondents State of Chhattissarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6985 OF 2006 Petitjoners Respondents versus Yogesh Patel and another State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. O.P.Sahu and Mr. Anil Mourya, counsel for the petitioner(3). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate and Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ith ORDER (Passed on 14'" Day of December, 2006) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments andseniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by ths learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and ofhers) dated 31-1-2000, Original Application No.802 of 1998 (Akhilesh Mishra and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Original Application No.991 of 1998 (Ramayan Prasad Dwwedi and offjers vs. StateofM.P. and others). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 3-10-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S.) No.5191 of 2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others vs. Stateof ChhatSsgarh and others) and submit that the petitioners are similarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The present bateh of writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of law involved in these petitions are common. 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on, after completion of two years' probation, the petitioners were regularized, but, they were not given the regular pay-scale. Other similarly situated teachere moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similarlysituated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1- 2000, to which learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents have no objection. 6. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstences of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by leamed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner withina period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering al! the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the Gopal 6 petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be also sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction; No order as to costs. ^ 8. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. — —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge )-(---•