.-> ?IM 'S^'SI^ s^^ T.N I HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S1 N0. &a>^'^~/2006 1:IIIIONERS 1. ^o^),?^ y-"",' •vafi^'1^'/ ^^T^^- p.^.s0-- RESF'ONDENTS 1. <-;;- <9 L. os^^ ^ 2. 3. 4.^' Smt, Jyoteshwari Rao, about 48 years, wife of Shri Rajnala Rameshwar Rao, Assistant Teacher, Government Girls Middle School, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG) Kumari Manjula Wasnik, aged about 47 years, daughter of Shri Laxman Wasnik, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Gerwani/ Tahsil and Digtrict Raigarh (C.G.) ' VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of School Educat4on, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The District Education Officer, District Raigarh (CG) The Block Education Officer Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG) (ForPet. No.l) The Block Education Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) (For Pet No.2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22T0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ^— 1-USH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. L WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6962 OF 2006 Petitioners yersus ResDondente Shubhash Chandra Verma and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioners WRIT PET1TION (S.) N0.6967 OF 2006 Smt. Jyoteshwari Rao and another versus Respondents Stete of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.6968 OF 2006 Petitioners versus Respondents Kumari Rampyari Dheewar and another State of Chhattisgarh and another Petitioner WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6969 OF 2006 Dinesh Prasad Sharma n versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another 'lSa^-aSS^S^iW.lShi WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6970 OF 2006 Petitioner Kamil Tirky versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6971 OF 2006 Petitioner Bal Chand Sahu versus Respondents State of Chhattisaarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.6979 OF 2006 Petitioner Maniram Sahu versus ResBonclents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRtT PETITION (S.) N0.6980 OF 2006 Petitioners Respondents yersys Pranadhar Lahare and others State of Chhattisgarh and others WRJT PETITION !S.) N0.6981 OF 2006 Petitioners Respondents versus Sunder Lal Sonwani and others State of Chhattisgarh and others EtlHe&^^^^ ^^^^'^?^!U^i^Hsi^^FE^ ai^^^piiCc^-d£tffiwit^'A£ESi4ais^^ « WRIT PETITION (S.) N0,6982 OF2006 Petjtioners Narottam Patet and others vereys Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.6983 OF 2006 Petitioners Ramkrishna Sahuand others versus ResBondente State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.6984 OF^ZQOS Petitjojiers Kaushal Prasad Patel and others versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and ottiers L Petitioners ResRonderrts WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.6985 OF 2006 Yogesh Patel and another versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Mr. O.P.Sahu and Mr. Anil Mourya.counsel forthe petitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate and Ms. Sunite Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ith ORDER (Passed on 14"' Day of December, 2006) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointment in the light of the decision rendered by the ieamed State Administrath/e Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and others) dated 31-1-2000, Original Application No.802 of 1998 (Akhilesh Mishra end oVTers vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Original Application No.991 of 1998 (Ramayan Prasad Dwivedi and others vs. StateofM.P. and others). L 2. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 3-10-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S.) No.5191 of 2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others ys. Stafeof Chhatb'sgarh and others) and submit that the petitioners are similarly situated, therefore, the similar order may be passed. 3. The present batch of writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of taw involved in these petitions are common. 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. However, later on, after completion of two years' probation, the petitioners were regularized, r but, they were not given the regular pay-scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrafive Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wrtierein teamed Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, allowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similarly situated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1- 2000, to which learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents have no objection. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion ofthis Court, the limited prayer made by leamed counsel forthe petitioners appeare to be reasonabte. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days 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 Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and if the petittonere stand on the same footings, as the ^^ssssswas»siswfflr^~"J^vi»ieiwuiwt»^s!'' Gopal petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be also sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected writ petitions. — — - _ __ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r F ^SSsf^SSKEWSKSfS^fSlli^