':3S. ••<to IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUB.CCG) WRITPETmONfS)NO.- ^S^8 /2QQ6 PETITIONERS <9" f.0^ L^ .0 /.\\' V .v<" ^ ^^"^ --» ,B^y ^6 <^» ^..'s^ 3?^' ,1. Narayan Prasad Sharma, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Durga Prasad Sharma, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School - Shabdmunda, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) 2. Kashmir Sai Paikra, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Godman Sai Paikra, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School Semarkachhal, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Sagamath Sai, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Sukhram Sai, Assistant Teacher, ^ Govemment Primary School - Shabdmunda, Vikas Khand Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4,. Shivnandan Ram, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Dalamati Ram, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School Ambadhar, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) 5., Goverdhan Yadav, aged about 48 years, / ._. . _ .- . . . son of Shri Parmaram Yadav, Assistant Tacher, Govemment Giris Higher Secondary School Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) 6. Raghuraj Sai Paikra, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Kharu Sai Paikra, Assistant Teacher, Governn.iciit °'<ai.sS;i%?f^^g»;^w»i! <Sii. '<». RESPONDENTS Primary School Paigamba, Vikash Khand K.ansabel, Tahsil - Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) 7. Suman Ram aged about 40 years, son of Shri Basua Ram, Assistant Tacher, Govemment Primary School Seharjodi, Vikas Khand Kansabel, District Jaspur (CG) 8. Shakeel Ahmed, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Mohd Riyaseen, Assistant Teacher, Govermnent Girls Primary School Ludeg, Tah. Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) -9. Vijay Prasad aged about 40 years, son of Shri Nakul Prasad, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School Bihabaal, Vikas Khand Kansabel, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secrfetary, Deparbnent of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal Welfare, District Jashpur (CG) Tf. The Block Education Officer Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) 4. The Principal Govemment Higher Secondary School Ludeg, 'fah. Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) '^y^^^'^^s^ WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, '* XI-HC-78 qncn a>*TT9i d-acl .^|qic1<|, ®T|1«'|S,|s|<ni<riy ^^.CS.^^.^^^/oC. ^ 200 3<i$<i Ma<n ('i?tii3'si<^]iT) 3n^?rw R^i* tisirsn^TsPife ^<nWBf?(T3T1^T «hi<<fii<fl-<•iiici) ffte^)'<R]+&i< ^arl^iTsn^r 11.12.2OT6 Sfriri A.N. Bhakta, learned cjounsel forthe pefilioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, leamed P.L. for the State/respondents. Heard. | By this petition under Artjcles 22^227 of the Constitution of India, the petitionere seek a dire| appointments in the light ofthe di ;tion to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on th^ basis of the date of their initial sision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabai()ur in Original Application No. 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra Sin£|h and othere Vs. State of M.P. and others)dated 31.1.2000 I 2. Learned counsel appearind for the petitioners piaced on record copy of the order dated 9-10-3 3. Assistant Teachers in the School completion of one year's probati but, they were not given the regi initiai appointments. Other similar Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpi 006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 9-10-2006 ( RaKesh Kumar Sharma -Vs- State of Chhattisgarh^and others) and sufcjmits that the petitioners are similariy ^. situated, therefore, the simiiar ord|er may be passed. The case of the petition^rs is that ttiey were appointed as Education Department on probation for a period of one year with the fixed salary. However, later on, after bn, the petitioners were regularized ?lar pay scale from the date of their |y situated teachere moved the State ^r ior regular pay-scate, wherein iearned Tribunal vide order datefl 31.1.2000 altowed the same.The petitioners made severat repr^sentations to accord the same treatment as they were aiso simpariy situated, but, the respondente^ P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^2^ 35g'sirai?w, ®T(I«'I<S,fi<'ii«y *11HWI aitfT^l ^AC^..^.,^/^ 3TI^?T><ath (l^tflt'yT) SfI^T ?>T f^IR) (PIT 311^1 <»ili'» ^ITWHflcTSn^T •sbi^f<-f''fl-f Kit<dTffte^l'<Ri'fr;i< ^sTf^Tsn^r have not paid any heed. Thus, ttiislpetition. 4. Leamed counsel for the pe< may be allowed to make a repres^r similar treatment to ttie petitionets been sanctioned to other similariy Isituated order of the State Administrative leamed counsel for the respondenl 5. Having heard learned coun^f to the Tacts and circumstances of t|ie the timited prayer made by leame<< to be reasonable. Therefore, the representation within a period of No.1, raising atl their grievances decide the said representation in of 30 days from the daie of re<teipt considering all the points raised account the order dated 31.1.2000 Administrative Tribunal in Originai 6. The writ petition is accordiitgly direction. No order as to costs. 7. Certifled copy as per rules. Mro (itioners submits that the petitioners .^ntation to respondent No.1 to gh^e and same pay-scate which has teachers on account of the ITribunal dated 31.1.2000, to which (s/State has no objection. tei for the parties and having regaro case, In the opinlon ofthis Court, counsel for the petitioners appears Ipetitioners are allowed to make a weeks from today to respondent ^nd, in tum, respondent No.1 shall ^in objective manner within a period of such representation, after |by ttie petitioners and taking into passed by the leamed State ^pptication No. 1452/1998. disposed of with the aforesaid Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 2d00 ^Me/ P.T.O.