t f^.^'^^ • ^ V A. Petitioner Resppndents Wnt Petition (Sj No. 4822 of 2008 Hukum Chand Son of Shri Khubial, aged about 59 years, Assistant Teacher, Railway Station School, Kurud, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari(CG). Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director, Public Instructions Directorate, Officer, Dhamtari, The District Education Dlstrict Dhamtari (CG). The Block Education Dhamtari (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Shri P.K. Tuisiyan, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasl, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passedon this 25th day of August, 2008 By this petition under Articie 226 of the Constitutlon of india, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay ths sncrements and seniority on the basis of the date of his initiai appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the iearned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Appiication No. 1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of W.P. and others) dated 31-1-2000, Original Appiication N6.802 of 1998 (Akhiiesh Mishra and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Originai Application No.991 of 1998 (Ramayan Prasad Dwivedi and others vs. State of M.P. and others). i|E|icTS!t¥!^R*@E3 B -w- -^-' 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner placed on a copy of the order dated 20-9-2006 passed by this Court in VVrit Petition (S) No.5137 of 2006 (Meghraj Tandan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is simiiarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Schoo! Education Department on probaiion years with the fixed saiary. However, later on, after probation, the petitioner was regularized, but he was not gi scaie. Other similarlv situated teachers moved the Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay scale, wherein tearned dated 31-1-2000 allowed the same. for a period of two m of two years' regular pay Administrative Tribunai, vide order 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be aiiowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioner and the same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1-2000, to which learned counsei for the rsspondents/State has no objection. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by iearned counse! for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is ailowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising ali his grievances and in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt or such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 31-1-20CX3 passed by t he learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Appfication No.1452 of 1998, and if the pstitionerstands on thesame footing, as the petitioners in frie Originai /2, :1 ^ ~"'aisgS] g \^J:y i^aiu Application No.1452 of 1998, then he may be aiso sanctioned the same pay- scale and seniority. 6} The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order asto costs. ——"^'" Sd/- :: SatishK. Agniftotri . ^j^fev^ Judge • ^- -w- !ii!r ^.i^a^ausi.