m §Hi$ am m (was) E200 mm wka ma mmtfwm %a¥%qanéa1 5inaie Beach: Hc Wf, §26 of ConsfHu‘fion o? India) (Pe‘ri‘rkm U/A - ?E?ETIONER gay Dub£ Wim Paiié Chhc Vs ‘p. kEsPoNDENTs Presenf: MrAmif Kumar Shdr‘ma, Adwcaw Mr. MRS. Bhai‘m, Dy. Govt Adv 03.i1.2998 Hewii 8y The presem' pe'mior respzmdem author-Fries ‘ro pa‘ his imfic! appom‘rmem in The Adminisfmfive Tyibuna} in ( ‘n'bie Mm Jus‘?ica Dhirendm Mishé‘a} is} No,§053/2608 mg Prasad Dubey, sen of Lafe Jwala Pmsad ny, aged abou? 48 year's, A551: Teacher, Govt :ry School, Mchtmdi, 8lock Kafa, Tahsil and i ffisgar‘h. f E A E C E E ni‘- a... .._ anuspur', Jfu‘fmn C - I .A Ka‘fu, — .. Dis‘hwc? 1‘ ~‘3_ d'afa Gcv‘r. of Chhaf‘l‘isgarh Through 'l’he )ecre‘mFy Schooi Educafioyi Depa‘r‘fmém, Mnis’rry, D.K.5. Bhawan, Roipur, Chhaf‘risgarh. >is1 ricf Educofion Officer Bilaspur' hhaT‘nsgar‘h ‘lock Educoflon Offtcer Block Kata Dts’rricf ‘Ilaspur, Chhu‘fhsgar'h. 'e for 'fhe poi'ifioner‘. for fhe Sfafe. ; 1'he pefh‘ioner is seeking o direcTion‘ro n‘he I increments and seniorify from fhe dofe of {igh‘r of decision rendered by fhe MD 5mm 1A. No.2?45/8S_(Mddhukanf Yadu and 56 K1 ¢ mamm‘ras mmnm ma w (W) mmwaanéer -Zr- WWWw'm ai 31% anésT ofhzrs Vs. 5mm of MP. and o'l ‘m WP. ($§ Ne.5976/06. Case of The pefifioner Begum; Teacher on fha fixed {A his probcr?ion period. he was re§ scala from 1‘he daTe of his ini‘ #eac'ners moved fha S’mfe AchJ pay-swig wherein ieamed Trig The same. This Cour? cdso whi No5976/G6 Vida order da‘r aufhorifies 1'0 consider The approached Tha responden? cm ha 33 cdso sim§oriy siwo‘kdi bu? Learned counse! for *i‘he g be ailowed To make a rapres‘am Traci-imam? m‘ We pefh‘ioner an Smnc?ionad To o'rher simiiarly si‘u‘ Sim‘va Admmisfm‘tiye Tr§bunai d Lmmed ”for ‘rhe 3mm h 1 m§wi$ ................ ............ I.‘ ...... W200 hers) da'l'ed 24.8.1992 and oiso this Cour“? s ’i‘ho? he was appoinfed on 1.12.1984 as ‘oy scoie of Rs.300/—. Af‘mr compiefion of yuiarized bu? he was no? given reguiar pay ioi appoim‘men-r. O?her simiioriy sifuai‘ed winisfm‘rive Tribunaii Jobaipur' for reguiar Euml vide order daied 24.8.1992 ailowed ie considering ‘i'he some issue in WP. {3) ad 7.11.2006 direcfred ihe resbondeni :ase of The pei‘i‘rioners. The peiii’ioner ‘horifies +0 accord ihe some frea‘i’mem as , ihe respohden‘rs have no? paid any heed. )efi‘iioner submiis “{ha? fhe pe‘iifioner may afion ‘io respondent No.1 for giving simiiar d same pay-scale, which has already been uated ieachers or! accouh‘i' of The order of i rid 'fhis Cour'i: wi‘rh a direcTion To f‘ne resgondq p5 no objea‘i’ion if fhe pe‘iifion is disposed infs fa consiaer ihe case of The pefifioner. mmaaiaaa) mmwma & 5... mumftaim mmum mm'#mm manager Having heard learned coun facfs and circumsmnces of The Cour“? “:‘he iimi‘md braver made r I annears f0 be reasonable and The‘ rr a represenfa’rion wi‘rhin a period No.1 raising all his griavances m The said represenmfioni in an OE weeks from the dafe of receip‘r i ali fhe poini‘s raised by The pefii nasged r by The Adminisfrai‘ive Tri Accordingiy; The peTiTim direeTian. m mqi$ TH 200 Se! for The parties, having regard To The casei in The considered opinion of This by ieamed counsei for The 9eTiTioher refer-e; The peTiTioner is allowed To make of Two weeks’ from Today To respondenT in Turn, respondenT No.1 shall decide viecTive manneri wiThin a period of eighT >f such represenTaTioni afTer considering ioner and Taking inTo accounT The orders ounal and This CourT. i is disposed of wiTh The aforesaid d r Kl ‘ Dhi‘rendra Mishra Judge i sdj- \ CerTified copy as per rules