@ G?&/ 1 O6L S.B. {Service Matwgja :2} IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A’I‘ BILASPUR> (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0; Wé’fmooa PETITIONER: Dinesh Kumar Verma, son of Munnu Lal Verma, aged about 38 years, Govt, Higher Secondary School Tarkela, District Raigarh, - Chhattisgarh. Resgondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretaxy School, Education Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, ¥ Chhattisgarh. {e ('3rrfk t‘ 2. The Dlstnct . . Educatlon . Ofiicer, 0/ (g a? Janjgir, Chhattisgarh I m,6 o’ Q3: I7L\4:£"” , CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-78 E W , W , W Wm w.£..?.L%.§/.c:>é m 290 WW(W) @ WWW WWW miaa‘iamnatn'wm $Wm mawm 02.01.2007 Shri OP. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sunita Jain, learned PL. for the State/respondents By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority 01 the basis of the date of his initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra $ingh and others Vs State of MP. and others) dated 31 .1 .2000 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 3rd October 2:006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chh‘ ttisgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is similarly situat cl, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The case of the petiti ner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Educ tion Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed s iary. However, later on, after completion of two years’ probation, the etitioner was regularized but, he was not given the regular pay scale from the date of his initial appointment. Other similarly situated te chers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regula pay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order dated 31 .1 .2000 allow d the same. The petitioner made several representations to accord th same treatment as he was also similarly XI-HC—78 ; bCI’t‘,'”fh'e ifesponde have not paid any heed Thus t petition. § 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thati the petitioner ‘may be anowed toimak’e a resentation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitio er and same pay-scale wihich has been sanctioned to other similariy ituated teachers on acoougnt of the order of the State Administrative Tri unai dated 31 1 2000 t0xwhich ieamed counsel for the respondents/S ate has no objection 5. Havmg heard learned ounsel for the parties and havmg regard to the facts and circumstance of the case in the opinion of this Court the limited prayer made by le rned counsel for the petitioner appears ,to be reasonable Therefore the petitioner is allowed to make a representation Within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No1 raismg all his grievanc s and respondent No1 in turn shall ‘ decrde the said representati in an objective manner Within a period of 30 days from the date receipt of such representation, after considering all the: points ra sed by the petitioner and taking into account the orderi dated 31 1 2000 passed by the learned State Admini trative Tribunal in Original Application No 1452/1 998 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of With ,the aforesaid directlon. No order as to costs ’7. Certified copy as per ru es. l Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 0 & 7 5i ns his p r o