C^l t3~S IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.( WRITPETITION(SINo.^72-3f /2006 PBTITIONER ^ : Smt.Vimla Devi Bhagat W/o Sri /- ,\Rameshram Bhagat, Aged about 36 ,/Q.y 'years, Upper Division Teacher, {^ ..••''^•- _.••; Department. of School Education, V''''.kK''"'t3 .-•'" ^'"^' •»°', "'^ \^ Presently Posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kotra, Tahsil & Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^:1. ^- 2. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary (Director), Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF^ANDAMUS. CERTIOKARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER OF LIKE NATURE ETC. XI-HC-78 3^ -^MM^, w^wie, ^wwy. *11*1CTI sbHich ••^••^••••••••••"•" ^T^ 200 311^1 4d«h(yiI^^eT) 3Tt^TqirfS;^iqi crar 3iR?Tsti*<i» ??(ITWflf5tT3Tl^ff +i<iffi41-i wRffffte^l'rfSresre ^sff^iTSfi^r Gopai 3-1-2007 M Mr. Sanjay Patel. Shrivastava, Mr. Amit Kurtiar Mahendra Dubey and petitioner(s). s. Hamida Siddique, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. Mr. V.K.Pandey, counsel for the Mr. Arun Sao, Govsrnl Government Advocate, Mr| Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deput^ Dubey, Panel Lawyer and| State/respondents. With the consent of learnef matter is heard finally and disposs Common order dictated iri open Court, passed separately. A copy of this order be pla| petitions. lent Advocate, Mr. Sushil Dubey. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate, Government Advocate, Mr. Arvind Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the counsel appearing for the parties, the dof. Writ Petition (S.) No.7240 of 2006 in ;ed on the record of the connscted writ Sd/- SatishK.Agilihotri Judge P.T.O. k cou OURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNiHOTRI, J. iS.) N0.7240 OF 200i Petittoner Ku. Neei Kusum Ekka versus ':-il Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and othsrs 1&RLT SS.) N0.7241 OF 200i Petitionsr Smt. Urmiia Khalkhi versus Besponcents lts.ie of Chhattissarh and othsrs ^BFt.i [ r'.S-.a. •iiO.7242 OF,2 i-'etitioner Srr.t. Rsgina Toi versus Respondents StaSe of Chhattisgarh and othsrs PETSTi' 10.7244 OF 200S Petitioner Ku. I'Viary Tigga versus Respondents State of Chhattisaarh and others z^ r ^ i.A?S5'T ? s a' ^ M OF 201 Pefi'tioner Smt. Rukmani Patei Resoondents State of Chhattisgarh and others •VR!T BpTiT'nM IfS. » MF1 fifinft r'c 9flnR ''sr\i s i~ is- i a i si^rfiy l^5»? s'^W.^I'&^^ ^>^a~' Ai^Virf ^ Petitionsre versus Gopa! Sinah Verma and others Resoondents State of C.G. and others VRiT (S.l N0.72S Petitionsr lanak Ram K.wn versu; .^^nr'^ar ! 1|n •<»a Si.' State Govsrnment of Chhattlsaarh and others PB.WI gtmonsr ",'raT (s.i OF 200S vsrsus Ram Dayai Sidar ResDondents State Government of Chhattjsga.rh and others ;TITK kl.' Petitioner i^.'ll'*! Gsiin.*^wi t5Sjn'"!1F %.? i i iy i versus rsnn^i5.nl State Government of f^-l,I® Kn 13 1(1. Wi ~p I® |0 |3I® 1(0 to 10 13 |a. |(Ds !^"** Itri 1(6 |ui fiG lu> <^* a> WT&ll "3"' ®. a: .«> <a E.i 3- »> 3 Q. o >*+ fi»3 c U) ;y" Ci Vs -., <cis Ito [6 \-~f M ••<« M e> |0 u> co r"a. <B ^.r» s. >n (Ci») "^sr B> ~:s Q r^ a- ui » " ^ 4WKJJ='-3 vi 1 4 IT (S.) N0.7275 OF 2C ^; Petitloner Chandika Prasad Pandev •AS^ Respondents State of ChhatSisgarh and others SOi Petitioner Shiv Kumar Shukia versus fSsc isspondents Stateof Chhatlisaarh and others Tlif^.s't.? ^%. ^ ^ S iWF'ii |-5-i i^^J. Petitioner Smt Rashmi Dwivsdi versus Resoondents State of Chhaffisgarh and others (S.) O P<-s,+i".; etitionere Santosh Kumar Banjare and others yersus ResDondsnts Stats of Chhattisgarh and others 79S1 • f Ss"^ a Bstltioner Smt. Vimia Devi Bha.asl versys ResDondsnts State of Chhattiss another sm ani WRnLPETjTION{S.LNp,7232 OF Q Petiiionsr Respondents versus Smt. Savlta Min; Stats of Chhattisgarh and anotner (S.S N0.7234 OF 200i "-^ Ratiti etrtioners Re§i?ondents •'»/ Mi!an Ram Vishwakarma and others Stats of Chhattisgsrh and others Present : W.r. Sanjay Pafei, Mrs. Hamlda Siddique, Mr. Ajay Shrivasiava, ?y1r. Amrt Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Mr. fi.4ahendra Dubey and Mr. y.K.Pandey, counse! forths pstitioner(s). Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate, Mr. Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Govemment Advocate, Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panei Lawyer and Ms. Sunita Ja.in, Panei Lawyer for the State/rsspondents. (Passed on 3'" Day of January, 2007) By this petition under Articies 225/227 of ths Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to ths respondents to ps.y the increments and seniority on the basis of the date of their jnitia.l appointment !n the iight of the dscision rendered by the Isarned State AdmjnistraSive Tribunal, Jabalpur in Origina! Appilcation Mo.1452 of 1998 (Harish Chand Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and orhers) l^- ^ dated 31-1-2000 and Origina] Application No.2745 of 1989 (Madhukani Yadu and 5S others vs. State of M.P. and offiers) dated 24-8-1992. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that the facts and questjon of !aw involved in the present batch of v/rit petitions are similar to that of Vtfrit Petltion (S.) No.5784 of 2006 (Mi.k Rain Daharie and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which has been disposed of bythis Court by order datsd 27-10-2006. 3. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed as Teacher 'm the Schoo] Education Department on probatlon for a period of tv/o years with the fixed salary. Hov/ever, iater on, after compietion of two years' probation, the petitioners were regularized, but, thsy were not given the regular pay-scale. Other simi!ar!y sltuatsd teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regu!ar pay-scale, wherein Isarned Tribunai, vide order dated 31-1-2000, aliowsd the same. Ths petitioners made sevsral representatlons to accord ths same tres.tment as they are a!so similariy situated teacher, but, the respondsnts have not paid any heed. Thus, these petitions. 4. Learnsd counsel appearing for the petitioners submlt that the pstitioners may be allowed to mate a repressntatlon to respondent No.1 to give simltar treatment to the petitioners and the same pay-scaie which has been sanctioned to other simi'ariy situated teachers on account of ths order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31-1 2000, to which learned counssl appearing for the Stats/respondsnts have no objection. 1 Having heard iearned counsel appearing for the partles and having rsgard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in th© oplnion of this Court, the limited prayer mads by learned counse! appearing for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. Therefore, tha petitioners are aliowed to make a reprssentation within a psriod of tv.'o vi/eeks from today to respondent No.1, raising ali their grievancss and, in turn, respondent No.1 shal! decide the sald reprssentation in an objective manner v/jthin a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering a!l the polnts raised by the petitioners and taking into account the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the iearned State Administrative Tribunai in Origlnai Appiication No.1452 of 1998, and ifthe petitioners stand on the same footings, as the petitioners in the Originai Application No.1452 of 1998, then they be aiso sanctloned ths same pay-scaie and sensority. Ths writ petitions ars accordingly disposed of with ths aforesaid dirsctlon. No order as fo costs. 7. A copy of this order be pl connected writ petitions. record of ths Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gooal