:^U^-Ktea^f^.ll^-.'^^ •)'^rr''t'.;-;ll!.r Siaiela iaee *-'( ^r- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. Ca:^/2006 PETITIONERS Smt. MoncyVerghese ^ W/o Shri Anand Alex.Varghese Age about 39 years, Upper DivisionTeacher, M. L. B. Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ,v?l/ 2. SmtSaralaTomar/ W/o Shri Satyendra SinghTomar Age about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Hr. Sec. School, Camp-1 , Bhilai, Block - Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 3. c^mFVfaFsha^FranklirD ^n^ Vdi^Ai ^^i?"- Shri AdisonFranklin ,..'••//> ^ ^^. ^'''y.^ . , .— ,. „...'. , ' c^ o to-'''^ y ...••"A9eabout 38 years, Upper Division Teacher, ^Y' ' ^**' N/^1' -*••* j€^< 11°.G^« ••'~ w •<•••' -^l" ,»^^'< ^•"" RESPQNDEN3S : ^°^ls^ ^/'"-'^ Block- ,Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Government of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner/ Tribai Welfare Department, Durg(C.G.) 3 Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg(C.G.) 4. Asstt. Commissioner' Tribal Welfare Department, Rajnandgaon(C.G.) ^)- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227^FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA II < ??< XI-HC-78 *ll*lMl sh*l[cb 3;sg'.:qrai?pr, »Tfl.*f'ie,("idiuy -^.?.C.^i?.7^/&^ ^ ^ 200 3<i^i'l ysich (I'lt^S'T) sn^r %r R-<i+ aw sn^r aOTW s^aiWHfiffw^T OS.12.2006 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learnei Shri Vinay Pandey, learned P Heard on I.A.No. 11055/200|6 I.A.No. 11214/2006 for condonatiorl amendment. The applications are allowed, on record and necessary amendmei a week. By this petition under Article^ the petitioners seek a direction to and seniority on the basis ofthedati of the decision rendered by the \\ Jabalpur in Original Application N^ and others Vs. State of M.P. and ottl 2. Learned counsel appearing the order dated 9th October 2006 p^i No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Chhattisgarh and others) and in Wrjt Bajpai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh| petitioners are similarly situated, passed. 3. The case of the petitioners Division Teacher in the School Edilcation ^raW^ imRfr ffte^t rfSRzrc ^sTf^'an^r 1 counset for the petitioners. L. forthe State/respondent. for taking synopsis on record and of delay caused in incorporating the The synopsis is directed to be taken it is directed to be IncoFporated within 226/227 of the Constitution of India, tl|ie respondents to pay the increments ^ oftheir initial appointment in the light l^amed State Administratwe Tribunal, |i. 1452/1998 (Harish Chandra Singh 1ers)dated 31.1.2000 'or the petitioners placed retiance on issed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) Sharma and another Vs. State of Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath and others) and submits that the therefore, the similar order may be s that they were appointed as Upper Department on probation for a XI-HC-78 sii^r^rfq.iN? traT3TI^TstiH ^T- ^ *ll*lWl Sh*ll<b 3S? -^NICI^, aTfl.wKo, Isldl'yy ^^.W,fi^..^^/$^200 3ll^<l laqi (yt3°lS,'3') CTttIWflfScTSTf^T period of two years with the 'oiifa'ifl-i iiiciTfftecA<Ri'wi<, ^arf^Tan^r fixed salary. However, later on, after completion of two years' proba(ion, the petitioners were regularized but, they were not given the regi|ilar pay scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Adntiinistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wherein learned Trib|unal vide order dated 31.1.2000 atlowed the same. The petitioners macje several representations to accord the same treatment as they were al|so similariy situated, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, tl|iis petition. 4. Leamed counsel for the rietitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to make a represerjtation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioners ind same pay-scale which has been sanctioned to other similarly srtifated teachers on aceount ofthe order of the State Administrative Tribulnal dated 31.1.2000, to which learned counsel for the respondent/Stat^ has no objection. 5. Having heard learned co(insel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of|the case, in the opinion ofthis Court, the iimited prayer made by leamed| counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the representation within a period decide the said representations petitioners are allowed to make a ^f two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all their grievantjes and, in turn, respondent No.1 shall in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt] of such representations, after considering all the points raised by the pet|ioners and taking into account the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by th^ learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1452/19]98. XI-HC-78 sii^T^tera; tisn'sn^Tshtii'b ^ >•-.-&, ^ ^ tTr«1CTTSRHra> 3S? -^WW^, ®Tfl.<rl'IS,(sK'lltiy ^.e^^o.7i/.6.^ W[200 3n^?Tiacn (icit^<si<<tr) s^aiWflfer^n^T 6. The writ petition is ac| direction.No orderasto costs. 7. Certified copy as per rul^s. <f]<if<-i41-i HiiciT^'teAt.Ri^K ^aTf^Tsn^T .ordingly disposed of with the aforesaid Sd/- Dhirendra Mishara Judge P.T.O.