\«Ml Fresemedb‘l W f$g da‘ed /‘% j» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. g‘bg \ [2006 : SMT. JYOTI NAMDEO, WIFE OF PETITIONER SHRI MUKESH KUMAR NAMDEO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, LOWER DIVISION TEACHER, SHRI RAM MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAHASAMUND, R/o. SHANKAR NAGAR, MAHASAMUND, TAHSIL 85 DISTT. MAHASAMUND (C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EEUCATION, DKs BHAVAN, I RAIPUR (CO) :2) COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE, RAIPUR (C.G.) :3) THE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RAIPUR (CO) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & XI—HC-22 3am, Wm, Famrqgt m mm WF/Vo3gg ‘zn l 200 6 . . m mw WW mmmw WW§WI§W WW %a¢%11311%3T \L ?-$«2006 Mrs. Hamida Siddique, caunsa! fer fhg pe‘ri’rionar. Mr. Sm‘ish Gupfa, Depufy arm. Advaccma for *ha Sfa’fe/rwpandanfs, an tidvancz capy. Heard. By fhe imfqn‘f wri‘f pe‘fi‘iun Lime!“ Ar‘ficle 226f22?’ 9f #he = ‘ €onsfifufion af Indéa, fhe peTi‘i-iener seaks a d§recfion 1‘6 #hg respcmdenfs 1‘0 k pay fhe incramems and seniorify tm fhe basis ef fhe dafe ef her inifiai appaim‘man’r §n The lighi‘ cf 1+e decisiow rendered by The Sfafe Admini§fmfive Tribund, Jabalpur in Q.A.Na.1452/98 (Harish Chandra Sihgh & ofher-s vs‘ Sfa’re {if MP. &o?hers) da‘fed 31-1—2000. The casa of fhe pefifioner is Thm‘ she was appoinfed as Lower Division Teachar in “rhe Schaal Educa‘iion Deparimeni an probaiion fm‘ a pawiod of mm year-s wifh fixed saiam- However, iafer an, after complei‘ion i Kmailwh of Two years femure fhe pefifiaiie {Wm regularized, b'ui' she is no? being r given “ihe regular pay $caie. Qi'her simiiariy Sifum‘ed Teachers moved The 51‘m‘e Admii‘iiefra‘iive Tribunal, 3' alpur fer reguiar pay! scale, wherein l’ learned Tribunal Vida order dale 31—1xZOGG alloweal fhe same. The peliiioner made several represeniai'i ns ‘i'o aceorcl same lrem‘menl‘ as she is alee similarly gifualecl Lewer Divisien Teacher, b‘ul fhe reslpondenfs have mi paicl any heed, iherefare, she is fare d lo file This wril‘ pelil'ion. Learned couneel fer fhe pefi ioner submifs fhaf fhe petitioner may be allowed ‘re make a repreeen‘lm‘i n la respondent Nal la give similar Treaimenf Ta l‘ne pel‘i‘l'ianer and he same pay scale which has been l (whsnian) XI-HC—22 EW,,W mm Wm ..WIR'..NO§$.$$[ gi Soma Par’‘iiei are $v1‘ri1‘iadfar car‘i'if ad capy m‘ ‘rhig ordar. /’ sancfimed 1‘9 ofher $imilar‘1y si‘i‘uafad Rachers’ an occaum“ of fhe crder cf we 5mm Adminisfmfive Tribunal d fed 31-1-2000 fa which iaarned saunsz! &ppaarir1g far Thé Sima/respondam has m abjecfian. Having haard learned caunse! far ’rhe pari’ies and having regard 1'0 fine faci‘s and-circumsfances cf‘i'he case fhe prayer mtide by learned counsal for Tha paii‘i'ioi'ier awacrs “m b¢ just fair am! reasanahie. Therefora,_ fhe peii’rionar L's giiowed ‘ra maka a eiaiied represei'ifafia'n raising a” her grievama To respomiam No.1 wif in fen éays fmm foday and in mm, respondan’r Nal shaii decide The 5 e wiihin 30 days fmm fhe dam 9f ifs receipt cansiderihg a” The grievah es raised by Tha pefi‘i-ioner and mking in'fe amoun? fhe crder dafed 3]!“ anu’ary, 2000, passed by the learned Shiie Admihis‘rm‘iiva Tribunai, J baipur ira O.A,N¢.1452/98. if Tha ai‘ifioner zifandS an i‘ha same fcm‘in as Tha paii‘iiangrs in Q.A.Na.3452/98, ' ihen sha also b3 sanci‘iened fha swig-pay $caia arid geniarify. Wi‘i‘h fha diracriem trfwewid Th3 wri‘r paih‘ian sTands dispwad af. Cangequam‘iy, I.A,No.7420x’2 6 {rise gmhds di5posad af.’ A Sdl— L.C. Bhadoo‘ Jgdge (did W) W a i / m W$T I ‘WW&’WW W ~ ~ V Wam ,