3 W THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •SihSv WritPetition.No. /2003 / •.f"a- ;;! ^•?;s;.:^'SfSsSWSsS. PETITIONER: Si'.n1^ y' ^ <s?<'^f ..^^"' ^•yy" ^6^'" &»vff" VERSUS; RESPONDENTS: sxs'r ^, .J.AC":T^ ^^^^yfc-^^.,^ Ku. Meena Bhardawaj D/o Shri Dewandas Bhardawaj-Durg , aged about 38 yrs Occupation-Upper Division Teacher, Resi of Gram- Teka, P.0. Dewari, Thana-Raziin, Block- Fingeshwer, Dist-Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisagrh through secretary S'rfc^'l — department ofCiugK^ fcducation D.K.S. ^fi£\[: \' t~s~~.. .a.-i*' y^ " -.A'^ ,0)' y Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2 Commissioner tribal welfare department Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3 Commissioner Public instruction Raipur division Raipur C.G. Writ Petition Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance ofwrit ofCertiorari/Mandamus 't- _\ t/r' HISH^OURT^QF CHHATTISSARHJkT BIIAS.PUR W. P. No. 281/2004 Pet'tioners Versus Respondents Manoj Kumar .tterai <& others State of Chhattisgarh & others W. P. No. 3318^003 Petitioriers' ; Mrs. AAanisha Solomon & o+hers Ver-sus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh &others W. P. No. 2271/2003 Peti+'oners : Manshaurrohn Khan & o+hers Versus Respondents ; State of Chhat(-i<9arh &o+hers W. P. No. 2288/2003 Petitioners ; Khoobchand Verma & others Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgorh & others And W. P. No. 2450/2003 Petitioner ; Ku. Meena Bhardawaj Versus Respondents : S*ate of Chhatt'sgarh &others SB; Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotr', J SmT. 1-tamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sushil bubey, Sovemment Adyocate for the respondsnts/State. 'b ORAL ORDER (1st September, 2006) The fo!lowin9 order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agmhatri, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek a directwn to +he respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their initial appointments in-thejight of +he decision rendared by the learned State Administratiye Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1452/98 (1-farish Chand Singh & others Vs. 5tnte of M.P. A others) dated 31.1.2000, O.A.No. 802/98 (Akhilesh Mishra A others Vs. Sta+e of Pradesh & o-thers) and O.A.No. 991/98 (Romayan Prasad &wivedi & others Vs. State of M.P. &others). 2. Leamed counse! oppearing for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by this Court- in Writ Petition No. 2577/2003 (Nem5in9h Thakur and others Vs. Stats of Chhattiqarh A others) and submits that the pe+itioners are similarly situated, therefore the similar order may be possed. 3. The present writ pe+itions, being Writ Petitions No. 281/2004, 3318/2003, 2271/2003, 2288/2003 and 2450/2003, iwolve common identica! facts and common question of IQW. Thus. these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The cases of -the petitioners are that they were appoin+ed as Upper Division Teachers sn •Hie School Educa+ion Deparl'ment on probation for a period of two years with the fixed salary. Howsver, later on aftsr complstion of two years tenure the petitioners were regularized but they vsere. not kemg given the regular pcy scale. Other similarly y'^ fl situcted +eachers moyed the State Admsnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for re9ular pay scate, wherein lecrned Tribunal yide order dated 31.1.2000 allowed 1+ie same. The petitioners mnde several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also simitarty situated Upper bivision Teachers but +he respondents have not paid ony heed, therefore they are forced to file this petjtion. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be ctlowed to mnke n representation to the Respondent No. 1 to give simiiar treatment to the petitioners cnd the sarne pay scnle which have been sanctioned to o+her similnrly situated teachers on account of the order of the State Adminis+rative Tribunal da-ted 31.1.20(X), to which learned State counse! has no objection. 6. Having heord tear'ned counsel for the part'ies and having regard to the facts and circumstotnces of the ca^, 'm the opinion of this Court the limited prayer made by lesmed counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to the respondent No. 1, raising ai! their grievances and in turn the Respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the dnte of receipt of such (•epresentation, after considerin9 a!l +he points raised by the petitioners and taking into account +he order dated 31.1.2000 pas^d by the learned State Administrative Tnbunat in O.A. No. 1452/98, and if the petitioners stond on the same footings, as the petitioners in the /">• (&• O.A. No. 1452/98 then they be also sonctioned the same pay scale and seniority. 7. Thsss writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order css to costs. 8. A copy of this order be plnced in the record of other four connected '(''. V;l Babiu writ oetitions, "Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^li