S.B. [Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH! WRIT PETITION NO.7‘/ %7 /2006. PETITIONER‘: //Md.Zu1fequar U11ah Siddiqui, S/o ‘ W. H.U.Siddiqui, aged about 39 years, Lecturer, Govt. Adarsh Middle School, JashpurNagar, Dist. Jashpur, Chhat'tisgarh. Resgondents / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. x 2. The District Education Officer ?‘& Janjgn‘, Chhattlsgarh // f / L 3 The Block Education Officer ag‘l "‘ (FM V‘w / @@ 0‘9 X; Jashpur Chhattlsgarh. “ / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/£&7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M , w XI—HC—78 HW,WW,W Wm .m£.:>.z§3.z.aa a1 200 m (13W) maniém WWW WWIWW ERWIWW %2a%nan%w 02.01 .2007 Shri OP. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sunita Jain, tearned‘PL. for the State/respondents By this petition under A‘ticies 226/227 of the Constitutien of india‘ the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of his initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the teamed State Administrative Tribunal, Jabzilpur in Original Application No. 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra $ingh and others Vs. State of MP. and others) dated 31 .1 .2000 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 3rd October 2 passed by this Couit in Writ Petition (S) No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Ku ar Sharma and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhatti garh. and others) and submits that the petitioner is similarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The case of the petitione is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Educatio Department on probation for a period . However, later on, after completion of two years’ probation, the peti ioner was regularized but, he was not the date of his initial appointment. Other similarly situated teach rs moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order dated 31 .1 .2000 allowed e same. The petitioner made several representations to accord the s me treatment as he Wmiiarl of two years with the fixed sal a given the regular pay scale fro W 0 i p - XI—HC—78 . W ‘ F ' % 7 & 9 W oooooo‘.o¢oooo. WW (W) mam WWW m m w m WW&‘W.W $WW, wave not paid any heed. Thus, this situated, but, the respondents petition. 4. Learned counsel for the may be ailowed to make a repre petitioner submits that the petitioner sentation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioneii and same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly situ of the State Administrative Tribu counsel for the respondents/Stat 5. Having heard learned cou to the facts and circumstances 0t the limited prayer made by learn to be reasonable. Therefore, t representation within a period of No.1, raising all his grievances decide the said representation ir of 30 days from the date of r considering all the points raise account the order dated 31.1. Administrative Tribunal in Origin; 6. The writ petition is aocon direction. No order as to costs. 7. Certified copy as per rules. ated teachers on account of the order 1al dated 31 .1 .2000, to which learned e has no objection. nsel for the parties and having regard the case, in the opinion of this Court, ed counsel for the petitioner appears 1e petitioner is allowed to make a two weeks from today to respondent and respondent No.1 ,in turn, shall l an objective manner within a period eceipt of such representation, after d by the petitioner and taking into 2000 passed by the learned State ll Application No. 1452/1998. tingly disposed of with the aforesaid Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.