@ ma W (W333) mamm m metm mmm anéet WW§WW $Wma Mr'. Jus‘rice Dhir'endr'a Mishr‘a) ’ Sinqle Bench; Hon'ble ' W.P. Isl No.6064/2008 (Pefifion U/A 226 of Consfifufion of India) Presen‘r: Mr. Somkanf Verma, Advocate for ~ 'he pefifioner. Mr. M.P.5. Bhofia, Dy. Gov’r. Adv. for The Sfafe. 03 . 1,1 .2008 Heard. responden‘r aufhori’ries To pay ir his initial appoim‘mem‘ in “the ligi Adminisfra‘rive Tribunal in O.A By The presenT peTiTion The peTiTioner is seeking a direcTion To The cremen‘rs and seniorify from fhe dafe of if of decision rendered by 'rhe M.P. Sfa’re No.2745/89 (Madhukanf Vadu and 56 111200 PETITIONER Rakesh Kumar Gour, aged abou‘r 49 years, Head Masfer, 5/0 Shri Bhaiya Lal Gour, Govt Primary School, Bhainsa (Sankara Block- Nagr‘i, Disf’r. Dhammri (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Sfa e Gov‘r. of Chhaf'risgar'h Through fhe Ed a’rion & Tribe Department D.K.S. Bh an, Dis’r'r. Raipur (C.G.). 2. Dis ricf Educa’rion Officer, Dham‘rari, Dis’rt. Dh m’rari (C.G.). 3. Blo k Education Officer, Nagari, Disff, Dh m’rari (C.G.) m $m‘m .................................... m 200 ma W (W) mmwmsi - WWW§WW a3a1%wanéa o’rher‘s Vs. Sfafe of M.P. and o1her-s) dafed 24.8.1992 and also this Cour’r in W.P. (s) No.6681/06. Case of The pefifioner is fhm‘ he was appoin’red on 7.12.1981 as Deputy Teacher on The fixed scale of Rs.150/-. Affer‘ complefion of his probation periodhe wasr‘e ular‘ized buf he was nof given regular pay scale from The dafe of his ini ial appoin‘rmen’r. O’rher similarly sifuafed Teachers moved The S'l’a‘re Ad inisi’ro‘rive Tribunal, Jabalpur‘ for regular pay-scale wherein learned Tri unol vide order da’red 24.8.1992 allowed The same. This CourT also whi considering The same issue in W.P. (s) No.6681/06 vide order da 7.12.2006 direcTed The respondenT auThoriTies To consider The c of The peTiTioner of ThaT peTiTion. The peTiTioner also approached T respondenT auThoriTies To accord same TreaTmenT as he is also similar paid any heed. Learned counsel for The eTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner may be allowed To make a represenT Tion To respondenT No.1 for giving similar TreaTmenT To The peTiTioner an same pay-scale, which has already been sancTioned To oTher similarly siT aTed Teachers on accounT of The‘order of STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal a d This CourT. siTuaTed, buT, The respondenTs have noT l y l T a h r ‘ ._ . . pmwwwwvv‘ m mg“; m 200 ma new (W333?) 31117 m amas mmwanéw ' mfmftwmww#ww $Wsnésr Learned for The Sfa’re has no objection if The pefi‘rion is disposed wi'rh a direcfion To The respondenTs To consider The case of The peTiTioner. Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The facTs and circumsTances of The case, in The considered opinion of This CourT The limiTed prayer made by learned counsel for The peTiTioner appears To be reasonable and T refore, The peTiTioner is allowed To make a represenTaTion wiThin a perio of Two weeks‘ from Today To respondenT No.1 raising all his grievances nd, in Turn, respondenT No.1 shall decide The said represenTaTion, in an o jecTive manner, wiThin a period of eighT weeks from The daTe of receipT of such represenTaTion, afTer considering ali The poinTs raised by The peTi ioner and Taking inTo accounT The orders passed by The AdminisTraTive T ibunal and This CourT. 195!m m Accordingly, The peTiTi n is disposed of wiTh The aforesaid direcTion. l l CerTified copy as per rule‘s. l l Sd/- ' l Dhirendra Mishral Judge