HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BIIASPUR S.B^j^ HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTM, J. WRIT PETITION <8)No. 1803of2007 PETITIONER -('•' J< Pitambar Sao, S/o Khem Prasad Sao, Aged about 35 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt, Primary School Usrout Block-Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Director, Public instroetions, ).K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Public Instructions Division, Raigarh (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Block Education Officer Block Raigarh Distt. Raigarh [C.G.] ^' Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for.the State/respondents. (Passed on 28fh ofMarch, 2007) 1, By this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India,the petitioner seeks a directioa to the respondents to pay the increments and senrority on the basis ofthe date ofhis initial appointment in the light ofthe decision rendered by the tearned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.2475 of 1998 (Madhukant Yadi-i and 56 others vs. StateofM.P.andothers)24M.l992. . . Leamed eounsel appearing fer the parties jointly submrt that the facts and question of law involved in the present writ petition is similar to that ofW.P. (S) No. 5784 of2006 (Milap Ram Daharia and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which has been disposed ofby this Court by orderdated 27.10.2006. 3. The case ofthe petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant ^- Teacher in the School Education Department on probation for a period of two years witfa the fixed salary- However, later on, after completion oftwo years' probation, the petitioner was regularized, but, he was not given the £ regular pay-scaie. Other similariy situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wherein leamed Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, allowed the same. T6e petitioner made several representations to accord tfae same treatment as he is also similarly situated teacher, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, tbis 4. Leamedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthepetitioner may be allowed to make a representation to respondent No.l to give similar treatment to the petitioner 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 leamed counssl for the respondents/State has no objection. 5. Having lieard learaed counsel forthe parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, in the opinion ofthis Court, the limited prayer made by leamed counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to malce a represenlation within a period oftwo weeks from today to respondent No.l, raising all his grievances and, in tum, respondent No.l shall decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of30 days from the date ofreceipt of sueh represenlation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the leamed State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and ifthe petitioHer stands on tfae same footings, as the petitioners in the Original Application No. 1452 of 1998, Ifaen he be also sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. ^- &. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Anut