C^to^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. <rss9 /2006 PETITIONER / ,<' y^4^ 6-^ ..•••' >•" ..•••" ^y ^'•^ny %^ /-,<?~/ ^/^^>' il .y ^'y/-"" <>^"->?>••' 'f' Sukalha Das Khunte, S/o. Shri Samaru Das Khunte, aged about 38 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher- Prunary School Sehrapani. Block Chhura, District Raipur, R/o. Mamulipara, Chhura Block Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /':!) State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary. Tribal Wetfare, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) /:2) Assistant Cominissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.) 0<" 5.C^ €> ai ^' '^- ^^s^ ^ fe 3) The Block Education Officer Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SE^^H Ss^S^ T~ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No 5059/2006 Petitioner : Dinesh Kumar Lahri Versus Respondents : State of Chhaft-isgarh Aothers W. P.fSl No. BOB8/2006 Petitioner : Shiv Kumar fiayakwad Versus Respondents : State of Chhatti^arh & others W. P.fSl No. 5062/2006 Petitioner : Pradeep Kumar Jatwar Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgorh & others W. P.(S) No. 5063/2006 Petitioner : RamgopalNogwanshi Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgarh & o-thers And W.PCSyNo. 5089/20W Petitioner ; 5ukatha &as Khunte Versus Respondents : Stoteof Chhattisgarh Aothers SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy ©ovemment Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDEft (18th September, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indki 1+ie petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the mcrements ond seniority on the bixsis of the date of their initiat appointments in the light of the decision rendered by the teamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Hoirish Chand Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. Ao-Hiers) dated 31.1.2000. 2. Leamed counsel oppearin9 for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thakur ond others Vs. Stcrte of Chhatt-isgarh & others) and submits that the petitioners are similarty situated, therefore the similar order'mny be passed. 3. The present writ petitions, being Writ Petitions No. 5059/2006, 5058/2006, 5062/2006, 5063/2006 and 5089/2006, involve identicat facts and common question of law. Thus, these petitions are being disposedof by this common or-der. 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Assis+ant Teachers in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on after comptetion of two years tenure the petitioners were regutarized but they were not given +he regular pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved theState Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scate, wherein leamed Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are atso similarly situated Assis+unt Teachers but •the respondents have not paid any heed, Thus,this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the difference between the Upper &ivision Teacher and Assistant Teacher is that the fixed sahry of the Assistant Teacher was Rs. 1200/- p.m. and that of Upper Division Teacher was Rs. 1400/- p.m. The process of selection and period of probation was one and the same. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners aibmits that the petitioners mciy be allowed to make a representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay scale which have been sanctioned to other simitarly situated teachers on the boisis of +he order dated 31.3.2000 of the S+ate Administrative Tribunal, to which learned State counsel has no objection. —— 7. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court the liinited prayer made by leamed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to the respondent No. 1, raising all their grievances and in tum the Respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the da+e of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points roised by the petitioners and tnking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if +he petitioners stand on the same footings.as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then they be also sanctioned the same pay scale cmd seniority. 8. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. ——~~ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Thakur