COURT GF CHHATTISQARH: B1LASPUR Petitioners Writ Petttion (S) No.5805 of 200; 1. Archana Agrawal, W/o. S.hri Puran Lai Agrswai, Age . about 44 years, Asstt. Teacher, R/'o. Mangaii Bazar, Near Pani Tanki, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 2. Ashok Kumar Verma, S/o. Late Shri M.L. Verma, Age about 49 years, AsstS. R/o^Vilsage & Post Korj, Bilaspur (CG). (As per appointment order Ashok Kumar Kachhi). 3. Shiv Bhajan Singh, S/o. Shri Jagannath sbout 48 years, Asstt. Gorakhpur, Distt. Bilaspur Resppndents Teacher, (CG). Versus 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, through S.ecretary, Education & Tribal Weifare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. District Education r, uii Msa 3. Assisiant Commissioner, Tribal Weifare (VVrit Petition under Articte 226 of Constitution of india) 'bieMr. Sati iotn, u. Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, counseiforthepetitioners. Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer forthe State. (Passedon this18th day oTOctober,2008) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finaiiv. . . ~ 2) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a directipn to the respondents to paythe incretinents date of their iniSiai appointmant in the by .the iearned State Adminisfrative ht of the decision ^ 2.. Tribunai, Jabaipur in Original Appiication No.274®1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Siate of t^.P. and others) dated 24-8-1992. 3) Mn £;-47'?."?n N0.54/3/2UUy ( couns&l appearing Tor the petitioners placed reSiance on 9'" October 2006 passed by ihe Court in Writ Petition (S) i'Rakssh Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of 's 'i 1 others) and in Writ Petifion (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai •jath Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and submits that ihe M~ is similariy situated, therefore, the. similar order may be passed. 3) The case of the petitionsrs is that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Schooi Education Dspsrtment on probation for a period of one year with the fixed sa!ary. Hovi/ever, tater on, after completion of probation period, the petitioners were reguiarized but ?1?3< were Adn given the reguiar pay scaie from the date of their initiai Other similariy situated teachers moved the State Tribunat, Jabaipur for reguiar pay scale, wherein learned Tribuna! vids order dated 24-8-1992 allowed ths same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same trsatment as they are also similariy situated, but the respondents have not paid any heed. , 'mis peu 4) counsei for to make a representation to respondent No.1 to glve may be allt similar treatment to the petitioners andsame pay'scale which has been sanctioned to other similariy situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 24-8-1992, to which jearned CQunsel for the respondents/State has no objection. 5) Having heard leamed cbunsel for the parties and having regarci tp the facts and cjroumstances of the ease, in the opinion of this Coyrt. g ^ limited prayer made:by iearned coansei for the petitfoners appears to be le. Therefore, the petifioners are a!tov»'ed to make a representation within a period of two v/eeks from today to respondent No.1 raising all their grievances and in turn respondent No.1 shaii decids the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days frora the date of receipt of such repre^entation, after considering ai'! the points raised by ths petitioners and takjng into account the order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the iearned State AdminJstrative Tribunal in Originai Application No.2745/1989. 3) The »wit petition is accordingiy disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju