IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE @F CHHATTISLGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition s N0. gg l 2010 PETITIONER Purshottam éLal Sinha S/o Tejpal. f § Sinha, 'Ageid about 50 years, Occupation gAssistant Veterinary, Field Officei‘, Rajnandgaon, R/o’ Tikrapara Ward No. 15, _ Chhuikhadanr Rajnandgaon, ‘ .' District Raj1iandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS L REsinoNDENT f)/ State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary: Veterinary Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C,G.) 2) Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur, r Distinct; Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon (C.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE/ ONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' i { HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) Nfo. 251 of 2010 ‘ Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 Of The Constitution Of Indla I SB Hon’ble Shrl Satlsh K Agnlhotn, J Pfééent: Shrl Bharat Rajput Advocate for the petitioner , ‘ ' Shrl A V Shrldhar Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24 day of February, 2010) x E‘ Wrth the consent of learned counsel appearmg for the partles the matter f 1, ‘ Is heard finally ' 1 Learned counsel appearmg for the pet1t10ner submlts that the petmoner I was 1n1t1a11y appomted as Peon 1n the Veterlnary Department by order dated 19 08 1983 1n the pay scale of Rs 380 5 425 10 490/- Thereafter the petltloner was promoted to the post of Lab Ass1stant and i subsequently to the post of Ass13tant Veterinary Freld Offlcer By ; I ' circular dated 24 11 1995 (Annexure P/3) the name of the post of Lab, i fAssrstant was changed as Lab Technlcrans by the State Government and 3 a hrgher pay scale was dec1ded to be glven to them, but the sald benefit , v was not extended to many of the $1m11arly Situated persons like the I, l V petltroner, therefore they preferred an or1g1na1 apphcatron before the V State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Indore (for short the SAT’) , wh1ch was regrstered as OA No 149/09 The Tribunal Vlde order I dated 22 12 1994 allowed the said orrglnal apphcatron and accordlngly; LSImllarly placed Lab Ass1stants were notified by new name 1e Lab ‘ Techn1c1ans and they were glven benefit of the higher pay scale Thereafter other srmllarly placed persons also filed appllcatIOn before: _ the SAT and srmrlar benefit was extended to them However smce the et1tlon/er had not filed any or1g1na1 appllcatron therefore ’_the p PETITIONER ' : PumshottamrLal Sinha. , _ , VERSUS / :RESPONDENTS z State of Chh‘étttisgarh & Others. t earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a representation to the respondents for giving the benefit of higher pay scale which Was given to the other similarly placed persons and the respondents may be directed to decrde the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the SAT and benefit given to the other Similarly placed persons in pursuance to the order of SAT, to which learned counselvfor the respondents has no objection. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard tothe facts and circumstances of the case; the petitioner is granted liberty to ; make a representation, if so advised In that event the respondent authorities may conSider and dec1de the representation of the petitioner in accordance With law Within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation after ‘conSidering the fact that if the! petitioner is similarly placed to the persons to whom the benefit of higher pay scale has been extended his case may also be conSidered With the direction aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of CY‘W Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI ”*" , JE"? 7- ,1 ,_ respondent‘s are not considering the case of the petitioner or givng ' , f i : benefit of pay scale which has been gi'ven to similarly placed persons: i L r 1