:I-HG—78 ^T^I^T^TNT ?I^T 3?[<¥iW^T ID^^' T 'S^ ^qPTT^R, ^Nt?TTT3, ^T!'^: "^200 3TT^T TR^ (^f^^I) I^TW^H^T^l (Sinole Bench^ ^l^i^^l'T ^l^af ^* feT^t ipsi^K ^3^H 3Ti^T h'ble AAr. Justice Dhimndnt Mishru^ Petitioner <.P. (s) No.5250/08 (Petition U/^ 226/227 of the Constitution) Smt. Simita Tiwwi, Aged obout 48 yews, W/o Shri Arjun Tiwari (U.D.T), Deokhinandan ©irlsHigher Secondary School, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C^) Versus Resoondents 1. State of Chhott-isgtB+i Tlirough the Secretary Education Depcrtment/D.K.S. Bhowan, Raipup (C.6.) 2. District Education Officer", Bjtaspur, District Bilaspur. 3. Block Education Officer, BIIha, District Bilaspur. 4. Principal, &irls Oeokhinandan Hi9her Secondary School, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C6) Present; Mr. ICS- Pawor Advocate for tl|ie petitionsr. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. ©overnmJBntAdvocate for the State. 19.9.2008 Heard. By the present petiti^^n the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to p^xy increments and seniority on the basis of date of her initjal appointm|ent in the light of decision rendered by the M.P. State Admmistrative Thibunal in O.A. N0,2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu T 1 •-te^ ^^!?^ / ^ I.HG—7S •3^ ^lNKrl^ ^l<^T(o, [®icrll^^< '"^ 200 3?T^T 'tR^ (•^35^) ^TI^T'^T'^ra' ^T^ 311^1 ^^NT ^RHWe^a^r -2. ^l^(<n^l"l "RT^^* ^ I^^T <psi^l< '^^rRR'sn^T and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. <s\ Courfr in W.P. (s) No.668/06. Case of the petitioner is tjiat she was appointed on 21.7,1977 as Assistant Teacher on the fixed ^fKf scale of Rs.lK)/-. After completion of her probation period she was r^ pay scale from the date of he^ cpprocxched the respondent autho d o-thers) da-ted 24.8.1992 and also this sguhrizecl but ^TIC was not given regular r initial appointmwit, Other similarly situated teachers moved the St<|ite Administrative Tribunal, JcAxilOpur M Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.1992 ^hile considering the same issue in WP. for regular poy-scale wherein leari^ allowed the same. This Court also (s) No.6681/06 vide order datejd 7.12.2006 directed the respondent cttjthorities to consider the oa^e of the petitior^r^ The petitioner hities to accord the same treattwnt as she is a\so similarly situdted, but, fhe re^ondents have not pajd wvy heed Leamed counsel for the pel be albwed to make a representati treatment to the petitioner and |itioner submits that the petitioner moy }pn to respondent No,l for giving similar poy-scale, which has already been sanctioned to other similarly sjtua^ed teachers on account of the order of State Administrative Tribunal cindlthis Court-/ Learned for the State has no objection if the petition is disposed with a direction to the responden^s to consider the case of the petitioner. •:^ ;«ff^ 1 XI-HG—78 IN^ ^ STI^r^Tf^f^ ^&n ^ + C2>) '3~^i '•^ii^scyR, ^itil-y^Ko, t^rray •^200 ^T^T T^^ (^?^^) ^^r^T TTfen 5^ -3>4 nlade Having heard learned facts cmd circumstances of Court the limited prayer appears to be reasonable an< a represfentation within a pej'i No.l raising all her grievanc^s the said representation, in 01)1 from the date of receipt of| points roised by the petitior|er by the Administrative Tribui[ial Accordingly, the pef direction. Certified copyas per |uiles. ct)i^?<n4'i ^ITR^* ^* fe^t <f^^« ^'sffpR 3T^?T ^ounsel for the parties, hav'mg regard to the |the cdse, in the considered opinion of this by leamed counsel for the petitioner therefore, the petitioner is allowed to imike ^wd of two weeks' from todoy to respondent and, in tum, respondent No.l shall decide objective manner, within a period of 30 days such representation, after considering all he and takin9 into account the orders passed and this Court. tition is diiqaosed of with the aforesaid Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge