mEqi$ 11200 1 $1331 a5: 12am an 3mmWm anésx m (Talia—Q) mmW anéel WW§WW $Wan€sr Single Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Jus‘rice Dhir-endra Mishra) ' W.P. .:l No.6063/2008 (Pe‘ri‘rion U/A 226 of Cansfi’rufion of India) PETITIONERS 1. Nmalu Ram Sahara, aged abou‘r 51 year's, Headmaster, S/o La‘re Shri Jhangluram Sah‘ar‘e, Govt Boys Middle School Belargaon, B|o¢:k—Nagar‘i, DisTT. Dhamfari (C.G.) 2. Punau Ram Naik, aged abouf 52 year-s, Hecdmasfer‘, S/o Shri Bisauha Ram Naik, Govt. Middle School Tangopani, Block—Nagar‘i, Disl't. Dhamfari (C.G.) 3. Pumnik Ram Nefam, aged abouT 52 years, Asst Teacher, S/o Shri Gadaram Rai Nefam, Govl. Middle School Rajpur‘, Block-Nagar'i, Disw‘. Dhamfar‘i (C.G.) Vs 1. Stare Gov‘l. of Chhah‘isgar'h Through The RESPONDENTS ' Edu a’rion & Tribe Depar’rmen’r, D.K.5. Bha an, Disf'r. Raipur‘ (6.6.). 2. Dis ricT Education Officer, Dham’rari, Dis’r’r. Dh 'iari (C.6.). 3. Blo ‘k Educa'rion Officer, Dham’rari (C.G.) Nagari, Disff. Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Adv. fo‘ the State. 03.11.2008 Heard. WW;W,W m wqi$ .................................... in 200 anaelm (WE) anwzmfhm'w mmum mwmmsw - mm'iwm aawma .‘Z/ By The present petition #he pefifioner‘s are seeking a direction ‘ro ’rhe respondenf authoriTies to pcy increments and seniority from the date of Their initial appointment in the light of decision rendered by the MP; State Administrative Tribunal im O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. and others) dated 24.8.1992 and also by this Court in W.P. (s) No.6681/06. Case of the petitioners 's that they were appointed as Deputy Teachers on the fixed pay s:ale of Rs.150/—. After completion of probation period they were regularized but they were not given regular pay scale from the date of t ir initial appointments. Other similarly situated teachers moved the St te Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur for regular pay-scale wherein learn d Tribunal vide order dated 24.8.1992 allowed the same. This Court als while considering the some issue in W.P. (s) No‘6681/06 vide order da ed 7.12.2006 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners of that petition. The petitioners also approached the respondent authorities to accord same treatment as they is also similarly situated, but, the respondents have not paid any heed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to make a representation to «respondent No.1 for giving similar treatment to the petitioners and same pay—Scale, which has 4, ##4 m mqi$ ‘ m zoo mammfaaa) ma :5!W am mam mmmiewm as ai%q 311w mmmmw r$f already been sanc’rioned ’ro o’rher similarly sh‘uaTed ’reachers on accoun‘r of /e Tribunal and ’rhis Cour’r. s no objecTion if the pe‘rifion is disposed n’rs to consider case of The pe’riiioners. 1sel for The par‘ries, having regard ’ro ’rhe fhe order of S’ra’re Administrafi Learned far The Sfa’re hc wifh a direcfion fo ’rhe responde Having heard learned cou facfs and circums’ronces of Th case, in The considered opinion of This Cour‘i The IimiTed prayer mad by learned counsel for The peTiTioners appears To be reosonable and herefore, The peTiTioners are allowed To make deTailed represenTaTion wi hin a period of Two weeks' from Today To respondenT No.1 raising ail Their grievances, raised in This peTiTion, and, in Turn, respondenT No.1 shall deci manner, wiThin a period of eighT represenTaTion, afTer considerir and Taking inTo accounT The orde and This CourT. Accordingly, The peTiTian is disposed of wiTh The aforesaid direcTion. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishral e The said represenTaTion, in an objecTive weeks from The daTe of receipT of such g all The poinTs raised by The peTiTioners :rs passed by The AdminisTraTive Tribunal CerTified copy as per rulerv Judge l l o \3‘ l