c..., '">-!^i.. <- iiGI iATTiSGARH: BIS-ASPUl Petitioner 'it Petitlon (S3 No.5806 of 2008 Daya Ram Jangade, S/o. Shri Kulkit Ram Jangade, Age about 52 years, Asstt. Teacher,. R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, Vtfard No.4, Garghoda, Tahsii Garghoda, Distt, Raigarh(CG). . ": ^^.K State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, through Sscretary, Education & Tribal Weffare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). ^ EpTj^S^ .t^rL'Q^ajp^y*t ^^*?^ r^v^v r^?t244 f^^2a?^ .nut, i...uLiL>iai,iUi a ^^iitwsi, iL/}2»i,i. i"\cii^siiti (CG). istant uommissioner, i n&ai •'veiTare Department, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh (CG). {Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, counsel forthe petltioner. l??*^ 'ViiH the consent of learned counssi for the parties, the matter is ^'?L^i?"^I4 iF?v°&''*^ 3 3^ ^ HSSfQ TIHSIiV. f iy this petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, the petltioner seeks a direction to the respondenis to pay the increments and seniority on the basis ofthedate ofhis initia! appointment in the !ight of the decision rendersd by the leamed State Administrative Trjbunai, Jabalpur in Originai Applscation No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56' othersVs.Sta{eofM.P.andothers5dated24-8-1S92. : 3) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner placed reiianc the order dafed 9 October No.5473/2006 (Ratosh (~t.1-.. ' the Court in Vrfrit Pei and snothsr Vs. i e on I'Ri hhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Petltion (S) No.S474/20Q6: (Jai in-i - •2- Vs. State of ChhaSisaa Nafri petitioner is similariy situated, therefore, the. similar order may 'be passea. 3) Ths case of the petitioner is thaf he '.vas appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department on probatlon for a period of one year with the fixed salary. However, iatgr on, after completion of one year probation, the petitioner was regularized but he was nol given the reguiar pay scals from the date his initlai appointment. Other s:rni!ariy situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribuna!, Jabaipur for regular pay scale, wherein iearned Tribunai vide order dated 24-8-1992 aiSowed the same. The petifloner made severai representations to accord the same treatment as he Is also similariy situated, but the respondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petifion. counsel for the petitioner submits that Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be ailowed to make a reDreseniation to resoondent No.1 to give simiiar treatmsnt to ths petitioner and same pay scaie which has been sanctioned to other similarlv situated teachers on account of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 24-8-1992, to which learned counse! for the respondents/State has no objection. 5) Having heard iearned counsel-for the partie.s and having re.qard to ths facts and cireumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the iimited prayer made by iearned counseS for the pstitioner appears to be reasonabls. Therefore, the petitioner is aliowed So rnake a reoresentation within a ceriod of tn'o weeks from today to-respondent No.1 raising all his grievances and in tum respondent No.1 shall decide the said representation in an o'ojective manner v.'ithin a perlod of 30 days of receipt of such representation, am the daie of points ralsed by the petitioner and taking into account the order dated m a>to-S.s<°: Rsiu 24-8-1992 passed by the lesrnsd Siate Admlnistrative Tribuna! in Originai Appiication No.2745/1389; " S) The writ Detition is accordingiy disDosed of with the aforesaid dlrsction. No order as to costs. Sd/- ssttisbK.Ag^botn € './ ^l ^!t£}%