(.& C! •i ^v-? :008 Petitiohers 3. Ramesh'A'ar Singh Sidar, Sto. Shri Nanki Ram Sidar,Ageabout52'years, Asstt, Teacher, Govt. Middie Schooi, Pandigaon, Dlstt. Raigarh (CG). Shouki La! Sarthi, S/o. Shri Rajdhar Sarthi, Age about 51 years, U.D.T. Govt. Hr. Sec. ScQpoi, Dhaurabhatha, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Dharam Sas Parja, S/o. Shri Namdhar Singh Parja, Age about 55 years, Asstt. 'garh (GG). Go\'t. of Ghhattisgarh, througl :ducatloR & Tribal Dspartment, S..K.S. Bhavan, Raj 2. 3; District Educatson Officer, Raigarh, Distt. Ralgam(CG). Assistant Comrnissioner, Tribal WaITsrs Departnnent, Raigarh, Distt. Rai§ (T~fS\ l.\^^3;. (WriSPetition undsrArticle 226 of Constitution of india) Hon'bis WT-: Satish'K.ABnihofri, J. Present: !r. SomiantVerma, GQunselfort Ir.P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerfor rffie pe' 'theS 'assed pn this 18 day ofOctober; 2008) With ths consent of Searned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fsnaliv. : • : 2) By this petitlon under ArticSe 226/227 of the Constitution of ilndia, the peiitioners seek a direction to the' respond&nts to pay the incremenSs and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment In the Sight of the .decision rendsred by'the ieames State Administrative TribunsS. JabaiDur in Ori.aina! ADpIication No.2745/1989 (MadKukant Yadu and SSothereVs. Stat?oflM.P;'and'others) dated 24-8-1992.gi:^:lj:'; A I ! <! 2 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated 9!" October 2006 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (S) No.5473/20W (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Peiation (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is simiiariy situated, therefore^ the similar order may be passed. 3) The case of the peSitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Schooi Education Department on probation for a period of one year wi eompietion of Drobatron they were not gi'/en the appolntment. Other s Administrative Tribunai, the fixed saSan/. However, iateron, after the petitionsrs. v/ere reguiarized but pay scale from tne date of their initia! situated teachers moved Tri same treatment as tney have not paid any heed 'ribunai vlde order dated 24-8-1992 ailovred the sarne. The petitioners made severa! reDresentations to accord the also slmiiariy situated, but the Thus.thispetition. 4) Learned counsel for the may be ailowed.to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petltioners and same pay scale which has been sanctioned to other similariy situated teachers on account ofthe order of l^: istrative i ri counsei forthe respondents/State has noobjection. Rt ^tf Having heard tearneci counsei for the parties and having regard to me rac' the case, in t? limitsd prayer mad reasonabie. .Th< ^ -z- Rajt represcntation within a period of two weeks from todsy to respondent No.1 raising aSS their 'srievances and in turn respondent No.1 shall decide the said representati( 30 days from the ciate of receipt of such representation, ali the Doints ralsed bv the within a period titioners and tai after consldering account the order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the leamed Staie^Administrative Tribunai in Oriflinal Application No.2745/1989. Ss The writ petition is accordingiy disposed of wlth the aforesaid dii-ection. No order as to costs. :Sd/- , . SatishK.S^gnihotri _ Judge