CJ^ff^o^ IN THE HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATnSGARH ATBUASFUR WBIT PETITION (S) No.5'^^^ /2006 PETITIONERS wA' /-y^v ^/•^?' '/<^'-sy /.^^?' .<^ <^' .^\. <^^^ y«y /:1) Mannu Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Keju Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Prunary School, Boriyajhar, Block and District Mahasamund , R/o. Nawapara Road, Ekta Chauk, Ward No.5, Mahasamund, Block and District Mahasaniund (C.G.) Ghasi Ram Kanwar, S/o. Shri Jhadi Rain Kanwar, aged about 44 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Beincha, Block and District Mahasainund) R/o. Ayodhya Nagar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) /:3) Smt. Ram Kumari Rajput, W/o. Shri Jagdish Singh, aged about 46 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Training Primaiy Giris School f^lC Mahasainund , Block and District Mahasamund) R/o. B.T.I. Road, Kumharpara, Mahasainund, '3fl*< .^> •^ A.B1 ••?• •w'.^ •r' E^...-. A DistriSt Mahasamund (C.G.) /:4) Ganesh Chandra Gohil, S/o. Shri Keju Ram Gohil, aged about 44 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Laphinkhurd, Block and District' Mahasamund) R/o. ImUbhatha, Mahasainund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ^ :5) Gaind .RamSahu, S/o.Shri Mangal Ram Sahu, aged about 41 years, Occupation- Govt. Servant (Assistant Teacher, Govt. Brijraj Middle School, Mahasamund Block and Distodct Mahasamund) R/o. Imlibhatha, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ^^YKtESPONDENTS /:!) ^^m\* *WT <».«.) :2) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Mahasamund, DisSict Mahasamund (C.G.), The Block Educatiori;' Qfficer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund(C.G.), WmTPETmON UNDERARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INMA ^ :3) !"*! 3 /2^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA^H AT BiLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRiT PETITION (S.) S\i0.5424 OF 2008 Pstitioners Respondents versus Mannu Lal Sahu and others State of Chhattisgarh and others ^ ^s Present : IVIrs. Hamida Siddiqus, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. (Passed on 9tn ofOctober, 2006) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the increments and seniority on the basis of She date of their initiai appointments in the light of the decision rendered by the learnsd State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur in Original Appiication No.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh ancf o ers vs. State of M.P. and others) dated 31-1-2000, Origina! Appiication No.802 of 1998 (Akhilesh Mishra and ofters vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Originai Appiication No.991 of 1998 (Ramayan Prasad Dwwedi and oihers vs. StateofM.P. and others). 2. Lsarned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed a copy of the ordsr dated 6-4-2005 (Annexure P-14) passed by this Court 9> in Writ Petition No.1890 of 2003 (Chhaffisgarf; Shikchak Saiyh (Teachers Association) vs. State of ChhaWsgarh and others) and submits that thepetitioners are similarly situated, therefore, they should begiven parity. 3. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the School Education Department on probation for a period of hwo years with the fixed salary. However, later on, after completibn of two years' probation, the petitloners were regularized, but, they were not given the regular pay-scale. Other similarly situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribuna!, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale, wherein learned Tribunal, vide order dated 31-1-2000, ailowed the same. The petitioners made several representations to accord the same treatment as they are also similariy situated teachers, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counse! for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be aliowed to make a representation to respondent No.1 to give simiiar treatment to the petitioners 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 learned counsel for the respondents/State has no objection. 5. Having heard learned counset for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, in the opinion of this Court, thelimited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners y appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners are allowedto make a representation within a period of two weeks from today to respondent No.1, raising all their grievances and, in turn, respondent No.1 shali decide the said representation in an objective manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering all the points raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the learnedState Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1452 of 1998, and if the petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Original Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be also sanctioned the same pay-scale and seniority. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Gopai