IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH') WRIT PETITION _NO. t-\3> i'3 _OF 2006 iS?S P IF-. Ki^s ^ C 4S^£ PETITIONERS ....••;: 1 ro^--.. I^V^-^Y^-'-" ^SM^ ...••••^\^"'°>""" •••' s^l;\!J""' ^^yy ^^ RESPONDENTS Notan Kumar Garg, aged about 38 years, Son of Shri Kheduram Garg, Occupation-Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Lalpur, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Soukhi Lal Pankaj, aged about 40 years, Son of Shri Bhukhauram, Occupation-Upper Division Teacher, Govt. High School, Dindouri, Block Lormi, District Bilaspur(C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawa, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Commissioner, Department ^ ofTribal Welfare, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Director, Public Instructions, ^-Raipur (C.G.). WRnLPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'p'^^^^^R-^-y^'* HIS^L/'OIJO-F ^IE ^ruuAT-i-rcffABu _^^- -A-VI - -<-^A* t^^ XI-HC-78 •M7^?T?STR-fi* cIW Sn^T sb*f Subhdsh •^ ",^ *iwcir 'ebfff^ ssrstFTRra', ®rfl«'iti,Rc)iyi^< ^ ''• UQ . p. ^313/s6 CTq; 200 3T1^?T (R^ (yi^q^ff) ??(ITW Hfer.sn^T 11.9.2006 5nit. Hsmida Siddique, Shri Satish 6upta, Deputy respondents. Heard. Perused the records. cout^sel for the petitioners. &ovt. counsel for the State/ Common order dictatedl separntely. A copy of this order be pla^ed on records. °bl'i(Fi-f.if1.< WRff ff fecfl rfSnZR ^3Tf^T3n^?T in open Court, passed Sd/- SatishK. Agnihom udge Ju P.T.O. Jcjt^^l r^! HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILA5PUR W P. No. 25ll/ZO(» Petitioner ; Smt. Uriia Thawre Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt'isgarh & o-thers W. P. No. 2512/2005 Petitioner ; Sarita Maseeh Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarhA others W. P. No. 4312/2006 Petitioners : Ramdev 5ay & another Versus Respondents : State of Chhattis9arh. & others W. P. No. 4313/2006 Petitioners ; Notan Kumar Gwg &onother Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others And W.P.fS) No. 4967/2006 Petitioner : Narayon Lal Chandrakar Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt'isgarh Aothers SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Smt. Hannida Siddique, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Satidi Supta, Deputy 6ovt. counsel for the State/ respondents. c ORDER ith (If September, 2006) The following order ofthe Court is passedby Satish K. (Agnihotri. J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek a direction to the re^ondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the ctate of their initial appointments in the tight of the decision rendered by the learned . Stnte ^dministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (Harish Chand Singh & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) dated 31.1.2000, O.A.No. 802/98 (^khilesh Mishra & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others) and O.A.No. 991/98 (Kamayon Prosad Dwivedi & others Vs. State of M.P. &others). 2. Learned counsel dppearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (NemSingh Thokur and others Vs. State of «'"• Chhattisgarh & others) and submits that the petitioners are similarly situated, -therefore ttie siniilar order may be passed. -4. 3. The present writ petitions, being Wrjt Petitions No. 2511/2005, 2512/2005, 4312/2006, 4313/2006 and W.P.(5) No. 4967/2006 involve common identical facts ond common question of taw. Thus, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The cases of -rfie petitioners are •that they were appointed as Upper Oivision Teachers in the School Education Department on probation for a period of tvw year-s with the fixed salary. However, later on after comptetion of two years tenure the petitioners were regularized K but they were not being given the regular pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jobalpur for regular pay scale, wherein learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also simitarly situated Upper Division Teachers but the respondents have not paid cny heed, therefore they are forced to file this petition. 5. Learned counset for the petitioners subfflits that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay scale which have been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunat dated 31.1.2000, to which learned State counsel has no objection. 6. Havin9 heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the • facts and circumstomces of the case, in the opinion of this Court the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners dppears to be reasonabte. Therefore, the petitioners are ntlowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to the respondent No. 1, raising att their grievonces and in turn the Respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in on objective manner vrithin a period of 30 dcys from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings.as the petitioners in the O.A. No. 1452/98 then -they be also sanctioned the same pay scale and seniority. 7. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the oforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be placed in the record of other four connected writ petitions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Subhash