§5mUf KW}? i ‘ cxwwff’ g C 1N TH: uIGH couR'r OF JupmATugE, AT 3:95PM (C-Gal Smt. Annpuma ,Shukla Wlfe of Shrl Sushll Kumar Shukla, aged about 42 years, Occuation- Asst. ’ Teacher, Govt. Gms Prlmary School Nalla, Resl. Of Sant Ravldas Chowk, Behind Kali Mandlr, Janjglr Dlstt. Janjglr—champa (C.G.) State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Secretary Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of Educatlon, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Ralpur (C.G.). D!rector Public Instruction, Ralpur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Distt.—Jajngir Champa (C.G.) ‘ Biock Education Officer, Nawagarh, Distt.— Janjgir Champa (C.G.) K p .. ‘ ’- ;._‘ XI—HC—78 69 H W , W , W W.2€;C§Q..Q3.Qi§.lin 200$ WWW WWW m w m m mmffwm v $Ww§w 07.1 2.2006 Shri Ashwani $hukla, le Smt. Anju Aahuja, Iearn By the petition under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner seeks a cirection to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority. on appointment in the light of the Administrative Tribunal, Jal 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu others) dated 24.8.1992. ring for the petitioner placed reliance on 2. Learned counsel appea the order dated 9th October (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh K Chhattisgarh and others) and Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chha petitioner is ‘similarly situat passed. 3. The case of the peti Assistant Teacher in the Sc for a period of one year with t completion of one year proba she was not given the regula appointment. Other similarly Administrative Tribunal, Jab learned Tribunal vide order d arned counsel for the petitioner. ad G.A. for the State/respondents. the basis of the date of her initial decision rendered by the learned State aalpur in Original Application No. and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and 6 passed by the Court in Writ Petition mar Sharma and another Vs. State of in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai isgarh and others) and submits that the therefore, the similar order may be ioner is that she was appointed as l Education Department on probation e fixed salary. However, later on, after ion, the petitioner was regularized but pay scale from the date of her initial situated teachers moved the State ipur for regular pay-scale, wherein ted 24.8.1992 allowed the same. The P.T.O. mm (W) 2 e h O , o ' w'vfzCé’Q 6 6 % / a 200$ WW (W) WWW WWW WW§WW wmwm agmm petitioner made several representations to accord the same treatment as she is aiso similariy situatec, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus. their petition. 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 petition r and same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other simiiariy sit ated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Trib nai dated 24.8.1992. to which learned counsel for the respondent/Stat has no objection. 5. Having heard learned co nsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances fthe case, in the opinion of this Court, the limited prayer made by lear ed counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Therefore, petitioner is allowed to make a representation within a period o two Weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all her grievance and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation n an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points rai by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 24 1992 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Origin lApplication No. 2745/1 989. 6. The writ petition is acco dingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sdl— Dhirendl‘a M 7. Certified copy as per rul . e ishra Judge P.T.O. e s . .