am m (W) aniwmfhfai manéwm mm “1%?! 311w mm'wwm 3i 31%‘1 311%31 {Pgfifion U/A 2 33?. a‘ I i IGNEQQ Vs RE5PGNDENT$ [s'i Nc,é05,‘l/2008 WP 226 of Cons?i‘ru+ion of India) Gope 5ifig§ Teac Dish 1. In (In pa Whig a’W. Eusfice Dhirendm Mishra) Simie Bench: Ha shwar Singh Ksha-hr'iya, son of Shri Ram 1 Kshaf‘r’iya,'agé& a%6u? 5G yéar’a Agsf. ner, Boys Primary School, Amali, Biock Kc‘ra‘ lie? Bilaspur‘, Chhaffisgarh‘ mfg 60W. m‘ Chhaf‘fisgarh Threugh fhe araa’rv Sc‘r‘mai Ea‘uéci?i6r1 Eéfiar=%merif, Minis’rry, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur, Chha??i$garh. “isfriicf Eciucaiimi G§T‘ic‘ér, DisWiicf Biiaspu‘r‘, hha’r‘risgarh. lock Educafion Officer, Biock K0111, Districf iiaspur, Chhafi‘isgarh. e for fhe pei'i'rioner. fGr' The S‘tg‘fa. fa ,. C E E ?resas’k$': MnAmif Kumar- 5har-ma, Advocm‘ Mr. MRS. Bhui-ia, Dy. Govt Adv G3.11.ZGG8 Heara’. fhe pe‘ti‘rioner‘ is seeking a direction 1‘0 fhe By *‘r‘ne presenf peTi‘Hor I incremeni’s and seniori‘ry from 'rhe dai'e of iigini‘ of decision rendered hy The MP. Sm‘ie . Adminis‘rmfive Tribunal in ( rasponden? aui’hori‘iies ’ro pw his ini’riai appoin‘tmgn‘i in fha )A. No.2745/89 (Madhukan’r Yaciu and 56 m§qi$ :...:.’.. “200 WWW E200 mat W5 (W) m31$f ' 3WImEI§H WQT mm wm maléflERWi L/ é? 3% 311%? ofhers Vs. STa‘i‘e of MP. and QThers) dcx‘i‘ed 24.8.1992 and also fhis Cour“? in w.P. {s) No.597e/0'6. Cage of The pe‘riTioner s ‘H’m‘r he was appoin‘ted on 12.12.1§86 as Depufy Teacher on fhe fixed my scala of Rs.300/—. Affer compkfion of his proba?ion period he was regularized buT he was no? given reguiar‘ pay scaEe from fhe da‘l’e of his iniiial appoinfmen’r. Ofher simiiariy sh‘um‘ad Teachers moved fi'le Sm'ie Admiriis’rm'i'ive Tribunal; Jabaipur for regular pay-scaie wherein learned Tribunal vide order da‘l'ed 24.8.1992 aiiowed The some. This Cour“? also whiie considering fhe same issue in W.P. (s) No.59?6/O6 vide order da‘sed 7.11.2006 direc+eci “Hoe respondem amhori‘i'ies To consider The case of The pe‘rii’ioners. The pe‘ritioner‘ approached The responden’r outhori‘ries To accord fhe same frea‘rmem‘ as he is also simiiarly si‘ruafedi bu i1. The resgonden'rs have no'i paid any heed. Learned couhsei “for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner may be allowed To make a represenraTion To respondem No.1 for giving similar TreaTmenT To The peTiTioner and same pay—scale; which has already been sancTioned To oTher- similarly siTuaTed Teacher's on accounT of The order of STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal and This CourT. Learhed for The 5TaTe las no obiecTion if The peTiTion is disposed wiTh a direcTion To The resgondenTs To consider The case of The peTiTioner. i 2w »,v ., 7,“’ m mqia .................................... m 200 mast m (W) §mmN«%aa a - mmzi'wm mmwm ,3/ awmar Having heard learned counsei for The garfies'. having regard f0 The fac‘i'g and circumsi'ancgs of 'I'ha case; in fhe considered opinion of ‘Fnis Ccur‘i the iimi‘red prayer ma by Ieamed counsei fer The pe'iifioner' appears in be reasonabie and T ereforei 'rhe pefifioner is aiiowed 1'0 make a represenm‘i'ion wi’ihin a perio of fwo wezks‘ from Today ‘m respondem‘ No.1 raising aii his grievances ndi in *rumi responders? No.1 shaii deride fhe said represenfm‘ioni in cm buieefrive manner; wifhin a geriod of eigh‘i weeks from f‘ne dafe of receip‘i of such regresenmfion, after considering ail ‘i‘ne poin‘i‘s raised by ’r‘ne pe ifioaer and faking info accoun‘r The orders passed by file Adminis‘franve Accordingiy, ‘ihe pe‘i’i’ri n is disposed of wi‘i’n fhe aforesaid direction. x-A n ibunai and This Court. T K: i sax: Cem‘ified copy as per mi s. i Dhirendra Mishra Judge mamm d