c o-o IN THE HIGH COUR3LOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t WRIT PETITION (Sl No. S'^fZ^ /2006 PETITIONER • y ^...-^^ ^y^ \'..''".'(?L ..••'" ,.<y RESPONDENTS ^ 1- Madan Singh S/o Shri Chain Sai Aged- about 43 years, Assistant Teacher/ Lower Division Teacher, Department of School Education, Presently posted at Primary School Lohari, Teh. Manendragarh Distt. Korea (C.G.) VE^SUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2- District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.). ^ 3- District Collector, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA FOR ISSUANCEJiF APPROPRIATE WMT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORD^_OFLIKE NATURE ETC. ^CS^2.^6 SINGLE BENCH : HQN'BLE MR. SATIS"K._A®_NiyOIRi,_J, is.i Petitioner Madan Singh versus Kesponaents State of Chhattisgarh and ot'ne:. Petitioner Smt. Shushiia Kha'kho versus Respondents State of Chhattisaarh and others r^a i . .F' £» •s-'-- Pstltioner UiiUN iS.l NU.i F_ 2006 fishok Kumar Mandal and others versus Resoondents State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs T-Tgg^p^ • -. Mahendra Dubey, counsei for the petitioners in ail the nQ?i?!rin- jrf^·E.;hl^^i i Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State in al' the petltions. 'SyEE >=iT (Passed on 27"' of October, 2006) ^- By this petition under Articies 226/227 of the Constitution of indla, ths petitioners sesk a direction to the rsspondents te pay the increments and seniorifr/ on the basis of the dat.s of thelr ini'tial appointment in the light of the declsion rendered by ths learnsd State Admini'strative Tribuna), Jabalpur in Orifiina! Appiication No.1432 of 1998 {Harish Chand Singh and others vs. Sfate of f/i.P. and others) dated 31-1-2000, Origsna! Application No.802 of 1998 (Akhtlesh Msshra. and Gthers vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and othars) and Originai Application No.991 of 1998 (Rarrsayan Prasad Dwivasi and others vs. StateofM.P. and others). 2. Learned counss! appearing for ths petitioners has fiied a copy of the order dated 9-10-2006 (Annexure p-3) passed by this Court in Writ PetitJon (S.) No.5473 of 2006 (Rakesh Kumar Sharme and anothsr vs. State of Chhattisgarh ancs ofhers) and submits that the petltioners ars simiiariy situated, thsrefore, they should be gsven parity. 3. Ths present writ petitions, bsing Writ Petitions (S.) No.5742 of 2006, 5743 of 2006 and 5744 of 2006 invoive Simiiar facts and common questlon of iaw. Thus, these pstitlons are bsing disposed of by this coiTimon order. 4. The cases of ths petltioners are that they wers appointed as Tsacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years v/ith the fixed saiary. However, iater on, after 'a compietion of two years' probation, th®petitioners wers reguiarized, but, ihsy were not given the reguiar pay-scaie. Other simiiariy sttuated teachers movsd th®State Administrative Tribunai, Jabaipur for reguiar pay-scais, wherein iearned Triburiai, vids order dated 31-1-2000, ailowed the sams. T'ne petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatmsnt as they are aiso simiiariy situatsd teachsr, but, the respondents have not paid any hesd. Thus, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for ths pstitionsrs submtts that the petitjoners may 'oe a!iovi?ed io maks a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay-scals w'nich has been sanc-tionsd to other simHariy sltuated teachers on account of the order of ths State Administrative TribunaJ dated 31-1- 2000, to which iearned counss) for the resoondents/Stats has no objectlon. ¥-• Having heard isarnsd counsei for ths partiss and havlng regard to the facts and cireumstances ofthe cass, in the opiaion ofthls Court, ths Simited prayer mads by iearned counsel for the petitionsrs appears to be reasonabi®. Thsrefore, the petitioners are ailowed to maks a reprssentation withi.n a period of tf/o w@eks from today to rsspondsnt Mo.1, raising aii their grievances and, in tLsrn, rsspondent No.1 shaii decide ihe said representafion in an objective manner Vt'ithin a period of 30 days from the date Qf recsipt of such repressntation, after considering aii the points raised by the petitioners and takins into account She order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the iearned Stats Administrative Tribunai Jn Origjnai Appiication No. 1452 of 1988, and if the petitioners stand on ths same footings, as the petffioners in the Originai Appiication No.1452 of 1998, then Shey be aiso sanctionsa the same pay-scale and ssniority. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with ths aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. A copy of this ordsr be piaced on 'ths record of ths Qooai lected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge