@?^B^"'-; ^ !~??-:'^??=;^ ? ^ ^'^ ^ ^..S;_ ^ ^ g'^^i;'^ >-<' 0^. ^ J.s INTHE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St No..^3^ /2006 PETITIONERS ,/" \^A /'.. >^K/f %w" •^' 'fV' ^"^" ^ ^•' ^:1) Chandrashekhar Sahu, S/o. Shri Derharam Sahu, aged about 36 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Primaiy School, Bharuamuda, Block Chhura, District Raipur, R/o. Village 85 Post Kansinghi, Block Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) y:2) Vinod Kumar Verma, S/o. Shri Ratan Lal Venna, aged about 34 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Primary School, Taurenga, Block Chhura, District Raipur R/o. Village and Pos< Panduka, Block Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / :1) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) / :2) Assistant Conimissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) :3) The Block Education Officer Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 9' ^/7 HI6H COURT OF CHHATT[S6ARH AT BILASPUR W P.fS) No. 5317/2006 Petitioners : Chandroshekhar Sdnu ond onother Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh &others W. P.(S) No. 5320/2006 Petitioner : Smt. Pumima Sao Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh A others W. P.(S) No. 5321/2006 Petitioners : Smt. 5oma 5ahu and others Versus Respondents : State of Chhatti^arh A o-thers And W. P.fSl No. 5322/2006 Petitioner : Haririiankar Verma Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh &o-Hiers SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajcxy Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for the reqiondents/State. OR DER (4th October, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agrahotri, J. 1. By these petitions under Art-icle 226/227 of the Constitution of Indn •the petitioners seek a direct-ion to the respondents to pay the increments and seniori'ty on the basis of the ctate of their initial cppointments in the light of the decisfon rendered by •the leamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (HariA Chond Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) ckited 31.1.2000. s^ 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court in Wrrt Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur ond others Vs. Stute of Chhatl'isgarh & others) and submits that the petitioners are simitarly si-hjated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The present writ petitions, being Writ Petitions (S) No. 5317/2006, 5320/2006, 5321/2006, and 5322/2006, involve identical facts and common question of taw. Thus, •these petitions are being diqiosed of by this common order. 4. The cases of the petitioners ure that they were appointed as Assistant Teochers in tHe School Education bqxirhnent on probart-ion for Q period of two years with the fixed sakiry. However, later on after completion of two years tenure the petitioners were regularized, but they were not given the regular pay scale. Other similarly si'hjorted teachers moved the State Administrcrtwe Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scale, wherem leamed Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petition®-s made several representations to occord the same treatment as they are also simikxrty situated Assistont Teachers, but the respondents have not paid cmy heed. Thus +his petition. 5. Leamed counsel oppearing for the State/req»ondents submits that the difference between the Upper bivision Teacher and Assistant ^ Teacher is that the fixed salary of the Assistont Teacher was Rs. 1200/- p.m. and that of Upper Oivision Teacher was Rs. 1400/- p.m. The process of selection cnd perrod of probation was one and the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners aibmits that the petitioners moy be allowed to make a representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay scale which have been sonctioned to o-ther similarlysituated teachers on the basis of -the order dated 31.3.2000 of the State Admmistrative Tribiuial, to which leamed State counsel has no objection. ——— ^ 7. Having heou-d leamed counsel for -the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the c<xse, in •the opinion of -Hiis Court' the limited prayer niade by leamed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reoisonable. Therefore, •the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from toctay to the respondent No. 1, raising alt their grievances and in tum the Respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the <fate of receipt of such representation, after considering all the pomts roised by the petitioners ond taking into account the order darted 31.1.2000 passed by -the learned State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then they be also sonctioned the same poy scale and seniority. 8. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 9. A copy of -this order be placed m the record of olher three connected writ petitions. SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Thakur