;*S^^^f^^ ^ ?"%?=°S.S.'^E ^"-^^^'LA.. ^C^ii?! ^^ f^"^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE_AT BILASPilR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. 5'^(c^- / 2006 PETITIONER ^^ .^y vy-'\^:"' ...-•" ^'ia'.&.-•-" RESPONDENT'S ..<» ^ .co^ ^y^ Gl®^to^"~1c^ VERSUS Smt. Sushma Swarup W/o. Shri Pramod Swarup, Aged about 35 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Girls Middle School, janjgir Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) A-. State of Chhattisgrh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Publiclnstruction Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Education Bilaspur Sambhag, (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer, Distt. -Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Minu nni ii J 3^^nSl.» tc/'<u^^i-»i IHATTISGARHAlBiL >UI SiNGLi i V i^isu; fiN!HOTR!,_J. UT (S.i 4- Petitioner versys Smt. Sushma Swarup ."^•Q^-S nf f^'hl^'ei^c'ir'sT'H •a"A^| /^^ 'ieis.'^ Ui ^iHieSi.iitet^^s;! S^H^ Vi' wsRIT (S.) OF 20) Petltioners Miiap Ram Daharia and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs l_T)Qfti.(5. Petitionei Smt. Vaneeta Chandrakar versus ^espondents State of Chhattisgarh and others TJTSON (S.INQ.581^ pstitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma Rsspondents versus 13*ffi /*? state or unnanisaai'i and otners Present : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioners in ai! the petitsons. h.4r. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State in alt ths petitions. r^i 'w; (Passed on 27in of October, 2006) ^ By this pet'.tion under Artctes 225/227 of the Consti'iution of india, the petltioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay thi increments and seniority on t'ns basis of the dats of their initlai appointment in the iight of th®dscision rendsred by the ieamed State Adrninistrat'ivs Tribunai, Jabalpur in Original Application No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh ana others vs. Stais of M.P. and others} dated 31-1-2000, Originai Appiication No.802 of 1998 (Akhiiesh and others vs. Stats of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Original Apptication No.991 of 1998 (Ramaysn Prasad Dwivedi and oihers vs. StateofM.P. and others). Learned counse.l appearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of t'ne order datsd 12-10-2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petitlon (S.) No.5593 of 2006 (Smt Asha Ekka (now kaushik) and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ot'ners) and submits tnat the petitioners are similariy situated, therefore, the simitar order may be passed. 3. The present writ petitions, being Writ Petitions (S.) No.5762 of 2006, 5784 of 2006, 5785 of 2006 and 5814 of invoive similar facts and common question of law. Thus, these being disposed of by this common order. s are 4. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appolnted as Teacher in the Schooi Education Department on probation for a period of two years with the fixed saiary. However, iater on, after completion of two years' probation, the petitioners were reguiarized, but, thsy were not givsn the regular pay-scale. Other similarly situatec! teac'ners moved the Stats Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur for rsgular pay-scale, wherein iearned Tribunai, vlds order dated 31-1-2000, ailowed ths same. T'ne petitioners made several reprsssntatlons to accord ths same treatment as they are also similariy situated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petitlon. 5. Learned counsei for the pstitioners subrnits that the petitioners may be aliowsd to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give simiiar trsatment to ths petitioners and the same pay-scais which has been sanctioned to other similariy situatsd teachers on account of the order of the State Adrninistrative Trlbunal dated 31-1- 2000, to which iearned counsel for the res'pondents/State has no objsctson. S. Having 'neard learned counsel for the parties and havins regard to the facts and cireumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the limitsd prayer made by tearned counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonabie. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation wit'nin a period of t>,vo 'A'eeks from today to respondent No.1, raising ail t'neir grievances and, in turn, respondent if No.1 shaii decide ths said representation in an objective manner within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering ail the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account She order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the ieamed State Administrative Tribunai In Original Application No.1452 of 1998, ai the petltioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Originai Appiication No.1452 of 1998, then they be aiso sanctlonsd ths same pay-scaie and seniority. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid (jirection. No order as to costs. 8. A copy of this ordsr be piaced on the record of the connected writ petitions. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopa!