SINCSI.E ^.s^@! IN THE HIGH COURT OF 31UDICATURE. AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P.fSI N0. ^ 7^1 /2006 PBTITIOBERS: / 13-C3?^ i^\ (B^ ^^O.B&.SPUR 1TN4 t\C\\ 11^,' .^ •svs" .^ff 1. Smt. Lata Porte Wlfe of Shrl Ganesh Ram Porte, aged about 42 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Prlmary School Parsahlnala, Block Akaltara Dlstt. 3anjglr-champa (C.G.) ^2. smt. Sonkunwar Markam Wlfe of Shrt Shlv Kumar Markam, aged about 34 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Prlmary School Parsahlnala, Block Akaltara Dlstt. Janjgtr-champa (C.G.) . 3. Smt. Glorlya Tlrky Wlfe of Shr! A.Ttrky, aged about 43 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Prlmary School Taroud, Block Akaltara Dlstt. Janjglr- champa (C.G.) / zi, Smt. Maheshwarl Kurre Wlfe of Shrl B.L.Kurre, aged about 46 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Prlmary Schoot Murlldlh, Block Akaltara Dlstt. Janjglr-champa (C.G.) /5. Kallash Ram Markam Son of Shrl Savat Ram , aged about 37 years, Occupatlon- Asst. Teacher, Govt. Prlmary School Gadhola, Block Akaltara Dlstt. Janjgir-champa (C.G.) ¥E8SUS RBSPOBDBBTS 1. ^2. /^ 3. ^4. State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Secretary Government of Chhattlsgarh Department of Educatlon, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantrataya, Ralpur (C.G.). Dlrector Publlc Instructlon, Ralpur (C.G.) Dlstrlct Educatlon Offlcer, Dlstt.-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Block Educatlon Offlcer, Akattara, Dlstt.- Janjglr Champa (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS / ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS AS DEEMEDFIT. XI-HC-78 *ll*ICTI a»<-1iqi 3:^"ll<llc1<l,W1tl'l<S, islcllti^ ^^.^2J./S^.. ^200 an^rqgq? (l?^3^F) antCTwR'IRi cTan'^TT^T ^ffm? warwH^crsn^T 07.12,2006 Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned c< Shri Vinay Pandey, learned By this petition under Article' the petitioners seek a direction to and seniority on the basis ofthe dal of the decision rendered by the Jabalpur in Original Applicatipn No| others Vs. Stete of M.P. andothers] 2. Learned counsel appearingl the order dated 9th October2006 p| No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Chhattisgarh and others) and in W| Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisgart| petitioners are similariy Situated, passed. 3. The case of the petitioners i< Teacher in the School Education O two years with the fixed salary. Ho|i years' probation, the petitiohers w^ the regular pay scale. Other simil^ Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.19< made several representations to 4< ^rafeRftq-»m?ffffte^ rfSFRrc ^aTf^iTsn^r )|unsel for the petitioners. }.L. for the State/respondent. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ;|ie respondents to pay the increments oftheir initial appointment in the light ^arned State Administrative Tribunal, 2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 Idated 24.8.1992 for the petitioners placed reliance on issed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) ISharrria and another Vs. State of ^it Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath and others) and submits that the therefore, the similar order may be that they were appointed as Assistant epartment on probation for a period of vever, later on, after completion of two s regularized but, theywere not given rly situated teachers moved the State >r regular pay-scale, wherein learned 32 allowed the same. The petitioners scord the same treatment as they are P.T.O. VBSS^'.itivSSW XI-HC-78 ^IIHCTI ShHI<t> 3sg'.<iiiiici<<, »t(1«'is,Islt-lltiy .^.^.kZ^.40^.. W^ 200 3<i^i ratn (lcit3°t<<lT) "sn^rw R-fi+ (T2n' 2(TT^7T sb*f WtITWHf^(T31^?T <T>i<itfi<fli Treff ff tetfl' f.Ri'KK ^Stf^ITOT^T also similarly situated, but, the resp^ndents have not paid any heed.Thus, this petition. joners submits that the petitioners may ^in tb respondent No.1 to give similar same pay-scale which has been teachers on account of the order of dated 24.8.1992, to which learned ^ no objection. 4. Learned counsel for the petit( beallowed to make a representatif treatment to the petitionere and| sanctioned to other similarly sjtuate|d the State Administrative Tribunall counsel for the respondent/State ha( 5. Having heard learned couns^l for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstahees of the limited prayer made by learned coi case, in the opinion of this Court, the insel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the peti)|ioners are atlowed to make a representation within a period of No.1, raising all his grievanees and the said representation in an obj( ^vo weeks from today to respondent in turn, respondent No.1 shalt decide jve manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such r^presentation, after considsring all the points raised by the petitioners ani 24.8.1992 passed bythe learned S Application No. 2745/1989. 6. The writ petition is accord direction. No order as to costs; 7. Certifiedcopy asperrules. 1 taking into account the order dated tate Administrative Tribunal in Original ngly disposed of with the aforesaid Sd/- °hirendraMist Judgp ishra r.x.-