@g C 7: PUT)L S.B. (Service Matter) 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION NofZL88 /2006. PETITIONER: Haxish Chandra Behra S/o Sudarshan Behra, aged about 38 ‘years, Asst. Teacher Govt. Girls High School, Garghoda, Dist. Raigarh, Chhattisgrah. x 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . The District Education Officer, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. The Block Education Officer, Raiga‘rh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/%Z OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA §.. XI—HC—78 W W , W , W ~ .w.e..7..t.%.%/é e WW R 29o WW (W) WWW mmm WWW 02.01 .2007 WW§WW éwmm Shri OP. Sahu, learned Smt. Sunita Jain, learne( By this petition under ll India, the petitioner seeks a d increments and seniority on appointment in the light of the t Administrative Tribunal, Jab 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra Si others) dated 31 .1 .2000 .i alpur in Original 2. Learned counsel appear the order dated 3rd October 201 (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh KL Chhattiegarh and others) and Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhatt petitioner is similarly situated, passed. r is that he was appointed as Assistant 3. The case of the petitions n Department on probation for a period Teacher in the School Educati of two years with the fixed sal ry. However, tater on, after completion of two years’ probation, the pe 'tioner was regularized but, he was not given the regular pay scale fr m the date’of his initial appointment. Other similarly situated teac ers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular p y-scaie, wherein learned Tribunal vide order'dated 31 .1 .2000 allowed he same. The petitioner made several representations to accord the s me treatment as he was aiso similaLhL counsel for the petitioner. l P.L. for the State/respondents \rticles 226/227 of the Constitution of rection to the respondents to pay the the basis of the date of his initial lecision rendered by the learned State Application No. ngh and others Vs. State of MP. and ng for the petitioner placed reliance on )6 passed by this Court in Writ Petition mar Sharma and another Vs. State of n Writ Petition (3) No. 5474/2006 (Jai sgarh and others) and submits that the therefore, the similar order may be XI-HC—78 3EnamRELEH m@}%mm£g 1mmm .w£.:21.gw9.é,.. a1 200 mm (W) WWW WWW WW§WW matmm %:31f%11311%w situated, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 4, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a re presentation to respondent No.1 to give Similar treatment to the petit er and same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly ituated teachers on account of the order of the State Adminietrative Tr bunal dated 31 .1 .2000, to which learned counsel for the respondents/ tate has no objection. 5. Having heard learned ounsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by l arned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Therefo , the petitioner is allowed to make a representation within a perio of two weeks from today to respondent No.71, raising. all his grievan es and respondent No.1 ,in turn, shalt .decide the said representati n in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date f receipt of such representation, after considering ail the points r ised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 3 .12000 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Ori inal Application No. 1452/1 998. 6. The writ petition is a ordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to cos . 7. Certified copy as per r les. Judge Sdl— Dhirendra MiShm P.T.O. i n r t