^^'^h^!i Sjiiffl F rtF"!rll EIS?Sli.l..K Ui-.^»"Sa <"^/OT^ XN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR rC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (Sl NO.—-'-^-^-^—/2006 PETITIQNER cv.-'f' -{Wi^ '.••'•' ^-^ \.^' ^- Smt. Rukmani Patel W/o Saheb ram Patel Aged-about 42 years, Govt. giris higher secondary School, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS .1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department of Education, D.K.S.Bhawan • Raipur [C.G.] 2. The Director, ^\J~ ] 0<. «<4'S>^ /7A .c,^ Public instmction, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] ,/ 3.Joint Director, Public instruction Division, Raigarh [C.G.] 4. District Education officer Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE226 GF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS. ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS The above named petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: r ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNiHOTRI. J. WRIT PETiTION (S.l N0.7240 OF 200S Petjtioner : Ku. Nee! Kusum Ekka versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION SS.) N0.7241 OF 2006 Petitioner Smt. Urmila Khaikho versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRiT PET1TION (S.l N0.7242 OF 2006 Petitioner Smt. Regina Toppo versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRiT PETITION (S.) N0.7244 OF 2006 Petitioner Ku. IVIary Tigga versus Respondente State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Resoondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7245 OF 2006 Smt. Rukmani Patei versys State of Chhattisgarh and others WRLT PET!TION (S.i NQ.S900 OF 2006 Petitioners Respondents versus Gopa! Singh Verma and others State of C.G. and others Petitioner Respondents WR!T PETiTION (S.l N0.72S5 OF 2006 Manak Ram Kurre versys State Government of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.S N0.726S OF 200S Ram Dayal Sidar versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others WR!T PETITION (S.l N0.7267 OF 200S Petitioner : Dhan Singh Sidar versus Respondents State Government of Chhattisgarh and others -^ Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7268 OF 2006 Murit Ram Sidar versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others T( Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITiON (S.) N0.7269 OF 2006 Ba!ram Singh Paikara versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Respondents WRST PETITION (S.) N0.7270 OF2006 Brajraj Nagraj versus State Government of Chhattisgarh and others ^-. WRIT PETITSON (S.5 N0.7271 OF 2006 Petitioners : Shiv La! Singh Maravi and cthers versus ResBondents State of ChhatSisgarh and others WRIT PETiTiON {S.) N0.7274 OF 2006 Petitioner : Smt. Usha Shrivatava versus ResDondente : State of Chhattisgarh and others ^ Petitioner ResRondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7275 OF 2006 Chandika Prasad Pandey versus State of Chhattisgarh and others •-s^ ^ Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7276 OF 2006 Shiv Kumar Shukia vereus State of ChhaStisgarh and others Petitioner Rsspondents WR!T PETITION (S.) N0.7277 OF 2006 Smt. Rashmi Dv/ived! versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WR!T PETIT!ON (S.) N0.7287 OF 2006 Petitioners versus Respondents Santosh Kumar Banjare and others State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.7291 OF 2006 Petitioner : Smt. Vimla Devi Bhagat versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another Petitipner Respondents WRiT PETITION (S.) N0.7292 OF 2006 Smt. Savita Minz versus State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETiTION (S.) N0.7294 OF 2006 Petitioners versus •^ Respondents Milan Ram Vishwakarma and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Mrs. Hamida Siddique, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. Mahendra Dubey and Mr. V.K.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushii Dubey, Government Advocate, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate, Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State./respondents. >rd!ORDER (Passsd on 3ra Day of January, 2007) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribuna!, Jabaipur in Origina! Application No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and offwrs) dated 31-1-2000 and Original Appiication No.2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu arvi 56 others vs. StateofM.P. andofhers)dated 24-8-1992. '« 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the present batch of writ petitions are similar to that of Writ Petition (S.) No.5784 of 2006 (Milap Ram Daharia and offiers vs. State of CWsattisgarh and others), which has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 27-10-2006. 3. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teacher in the Schooi 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 regutarized, but, they were not given the regular pay-scaie. Other simiiarly situated teachers 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 severa! representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similariy situated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, these petitions. 4. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners may be a!!owed 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 simiiarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1- 2000, to which learned counsei appearing for the State/respondents have no objection. [ :^^;u;.£tftia!£SK ^-"i>, 'i* 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and cireumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by iearned counsel appearing for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are aliowed to make a representation within a period of two wesks 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 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Originai Application No.1452 of 1998, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be also sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. 6. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. ... --— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge GoDaI