^=r '<<i<ii<'i<<, »Tily'i<o, fsicii'Hy sn^n Tra?? ('i'ifsi'i8') an^r vs ft-fi'ii 'tWI 311^51 sblfj* !. y Writ PeUt PETITIONERS RESPONDENT«: (Writ PeUtloa under Artlcle Siaele Bench: Hon'ble Shri 09-02-2009;- ShriAjay Shrivastava, cou4sel for the petitioners. Shri ArunSao, GA fpr the 9tate. Heard. <^iilif<Nt'ri ^i^fff^f f^1c^ <f^-i-$i< i? afRpr sii^i on (S| No.809/2009 1'ularam Dadseua, S/o Shri Tulsirain Ipadsena, aged about 58 years, Head l|4aster, R/o Village Bawaukera, Tah. $lock Mahasamund, Distt. ^Iahasaniund (CG) fai Siugh Nag, S/o Shri Chhatersiagh Ifag, aged about 54 years, Head flflaster, Govt. Priinaiy School lEudanbahra, Distt. Mahasamiuid FG) $ewak Sidar, S/o Shri Bhagatram. $idar, aged about 54 years, Head I(taster, Govt. Pritmary School Ipudaribahra, Distt. Mahasamund (1=0) y -Vlersus- ^tate of Chhatdsgarh, fhrough ^ecretary Education Departaient, Ip.K.S. Bhawan, Distt.-Raipur (CG) Ipistrict Education Officer, fllahasamuiid, Distt. Mahasamund (|SG) ^26 ofthe Coastitutioa ofladiaj DhyenAa Mlshra, J. wre^r^; €S. T ^•SS^ 1 •ww^ j 'ysf '*fwm^, 8iTtl<-!'ia, [sidiy^ an^l'q^T ('^fg^r) 3ii^aqfffiaN? 'i^ sn^i g;w^ 'Barai's^i an^f 2-. +1^'^ ^H^'^ ^s^ <l^^R ^STfitHSn^T "yy ttie uistaut petttion, respondeitts to pay the pay scale of fheir initial appointmeut in fh^ learaed State AdimDistratiye Tnbl No.2745/1989 (Madhukaut Yadtij others) dated 24.8.1992. Case of the petitioners, ii^. brief, is fhat fhe petitioners were appoiated as teacher on a fixe^ pay-scale iu the School Education Department on a fixed probatioB] were regularized ia the School dated 9th October 2006 passed bj (Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Anothei Ors.), and subinits that the petiti'd petitloners seek a direction to the |and seiuority on fhe basis of fhe date Ught of fhe decision rendered by the tinal, Jabalpur in Origiaal AppUcation and 56 others Vs. State ofM.P. and period, Subsequently, fheir services Education Departmeiit of fhe State Goveminent Leanied coiiusel for fhe pejtttioners placed reliaace on fhe onler fhis Court iu W.P. (S) No.5473/2006 I- Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and W.P. fS; JVb. 5474/2006 fJcu" J?a<ft Bqya;' l^s. S(ate o/ Chkaiiisgarh & ners are similarly situated, therefore, the similar order inay be passed. Leamed coiinsel for fhe pejtitioners subuiits fhat fhe petitkiners raay be aUowed to inake a repre^entation to respondent No.l to give similar treatment to fhe petitioi^ers and same pay-scale which has been saactioned to other similarlV situated teachers oa accouitt of fhe order for the State AdmiuistTative Tribunal dated 24.8.1992, to which leamed counsel for fhe responde4ts/State has no objection.. 3TT^r7r^^^fsuT^lI?T^-?T?H^—FS/9S—-l^ /2COS—1,00-000. ^l ^g';qraRT?T, '^rtaTis, tsitfi'M;i< Sn^liR^T (ipf^^q) VtWV T^IIWaftH 31I^T 3- WlfeTqN 1WTCTS-if fe^t •^RSTC ^i'sifTOsn^fi Having heard leamed coun^el for the parties and haviag regard to fhe facts aad circuinstances offhe case, ia ttie opiruon offhis Coiirt, £helimited prayer aiade by leamep counsel for fhe petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, fh^ represeritatiyn wifhia a period respondentNb. 1, raisiug all their objective manaer within a period petitioners are aUowed to niake a of two weeks frovi today before ^rievauces raised iu this petition and ia tum,,, respondent No.l shaU djecide fhe said representation iti an 'f 30 days fix>in thc date of receipt of such represeutation, after consi^ermg aU the poiats raised by the petitiouers aad takiag into accoiujit fhe order dated 24.8,1992 passed by the learued State Adinitiistraljive Tnbunal iu Original Application No. 2745/1989. The writ petition is accord|iigly disposed of wifh the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Certi&ed copy as per rules. sd'-...^ ^endraMisbra Judge