7 dgg §0@Ls IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.5”? 80 /2006 PETITIONERS :1) Smt. Sandhya Ray, W/o. Shri/ Tandan Das Ray, aged about 35 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assitant Teacr, Govt. Primary School, Salhebhatha, Block an Disrict Mahasamnd, R/o. Ram Rahim Nagar, Mahasamund, Block and District Mahasamund (C.G.) Shri Kama Singh Diwn, Shri Sony Diwan, age about 39 ye, Occupation— Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Pacheda, Block Bagbahra, Dstrict ahasamnd) R/o. Sher, Ma’samund, District Mahasamund (C.) Jitendra Kumar Chandrakar, Sio Shri Ghanshyam Lal Chandrakar, aged about 41 years, Occupation— Govt. Servt (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Ravanbhatha, Mahasamund Block and District Mahasamund) R/o. Ward No‘3, ldgahbhata, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) :4) Krishna Kumar Chandrakar, S/o. x Shri Punit Ram 'Chandrakar s he d t u l a / sa d ars i Mu ha .G x an f 2 Chandrakar, aged about 41- years, Occupation- I Govt. Servant (Ass'istant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Bakma, Block and District Mahasamund) Mahasamund, Mahasamund (C.G.) Chetan Singh Diwan, W/o. Shriy’ Guhan Singh Diwan, aged about 37‘ years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Mararkasibahra Block Bagbahra, District Mahasamund) R/o. Village and Post Mohandi, Block ‘Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G‘) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through/V R/ Kharora, District RESPONDENTS :1)t Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), The Block Education Officer/ Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), :4) The Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.), Block Education Officer- o. Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) District Education Officerf’ Pm'sem : Miss.Hamida siddiquemounsaimma’patikners; - Miss Deepali rPandey. Panel Lawyer. ’for ma respondents/state. ORDER (Passad on 6‘“ 6f ’No‘vembar, 2005) By this pah’Mn under Articles 22m7 of ma Gunman of India, the paticioners seeka dimction to the raspmdamwo pay the incremans and seniority on the basis ofvmo, date aimeir-initiaiu i appointments in the Iight of the deaision‘rendered by the loamdsmte Administrative. Tgibunai; Jabaipur in Original Applicanon No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand §ingh gndaihers vs. stain cf MP. and when) dated 31-1-2000. angina/Application No;802of 1998 (AkhiieshzMMm - ‘ ’ and Omar: vs. shte of Madua Pladeah and Wiandsetiginai Application No.991 of 1998 (Ramayan Prased Wandoihors vs; i State of M.P. and others). 2. Learned counsei appearing hr the petiu‘onere pieced on record arcopy of the order dated 20-9-2006 passed by-thieEourt-inwnt Petition (8.) No.5137 at 2006 (Meghr$. Tandan vs. 3mm ¢" 5 7 Chhem’saam und «hers; and submws thatthe petitionersare similarly situated, therefore me similar order may be passed. 3. V The cases of the pdtimnrehat muy were appoirrhd . as Assistant Teachers in, the School Educamn Bumrtnent on probation for a periodrof two yoau'with the fixed salary. Hwever..idper$ on, after completion of two years' probem me rpemloners' were. regularized, but, they wereynot giveniheregular pay-scam similady. slmated leachere moved the slate. Adminisuative'l’ribunui, A Jabalpur for regular pay-scale. wherein learned Tribunal. vide order a dated 31-1-2000. allowed the semeyThe pemioners made several r representahons in accord the same treatment as they are also similarly situated teachers. but, the respondents have not peideny heed. Thus. l this petition. 4. - Leamed counsel for the (pe’htioners submik met me petidoners‘rnay be allowed to make a representahen to respondent No.1 to give similar treatmentto the petitioners end the some pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order of me State Administrahve/Tribunel dated 31-1- 2000. to which leamed counsel for the respondentslahte has no objection. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and hevingsz regard to the fees and circumstances 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 petihoners areraliowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to i respondent No.1, raising ail their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 snail decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of reoeipt of such representation. after considering all the points raised by the petitioners and taking into acoount the order dated 31-1-2000 pewed by die learned state Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No‘1452 of 1998. and if the petitioners stand on the same footings. as die petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998. then they be also sanctionedthe same pay-scale and seniority. 6. The writ petition is eeoordingiy disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i i i