TiSQARH: BILA3 Petitioner Wril Petition'fSlNo.5S09 of200i Ariun Ram Sahu, aged 56 years, S/. Sahu, Upper Divisie Govt. Higher Seconda; Teacher, Schooi, Tedesara, Disit. Rajnandgaon. Versus The State^Sovemment of Chhattisgarh, through the Secrstary, School Education Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, 2. 3. 4. Director of Public Snstructions, State of ?arh, Pension Bada, Rai The District E Rajnandgaon (CG). The Dtetrict Education C-fficar. Rajnandgaon(CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of Gonstitution of tndial l^tSr. Present: i^r. Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lav<y'er for the State. ORDi >th With the conssnt of iearned counsel for the parties, the matter is leardfinaily. 2) Sy this pstition under Artide 226/227 of the Constitution of india, ents to pay the petitioner, and seniority on the basis ofthe date 6f Hjs initiai appointment in the Sighi of the decision rendered by the learned State Administrative Jabalpur in Origina! Application No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu others Vs. State of M.P. and others) datsd 24-8-1992. ; 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner piaced reiiance os rfh ie Courtin it Petition (S) •jo.5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another Vs.'State of ^ Chhattisgarh and others) and in Writ Petition (S) No. 5474/2006 (Jai Nath Bajpai Vs. State of ChhatSisgarh and others) and submits that the petitioner is simiiarly situated, therefore, the simiiar order may be passed. - 3) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher m ihe Schoc-i Education Departisent on probation for a period of one year with the fixed salary. Howsver, iater on, after compleaon of ons year probation, the petitioner was regularized but he was not given the reguiar pay scaie from the date his initial appointment. Other simitariy situated teachers moved the State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur for rsguiar pay scale, wh&rein iearned Tribuna! vide order dated 24-8-1992 allcwed the sarne. The petitioner made seyeral representations to accord the same treatment as he is also similariv' situated, .but is asso simiianv' si rsspondents have not paid any heed. Thus, this petftlon. 4) Learned counsei for the pstitioner submits that the petitionsr may be allov»'edto make a representation to respondent No.1 to give similar treatment to the petitioner and same pay scale sanctioned to other simiiariy situated teachers on account ofthe order of ihs State Administrative Tribunai dated 24-8-1992, to which learned counsel for the respondents/State has no objection. s^\ Having heard iearned counset for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the'case-, in ihe opinion of thls Court, the Simited prayer made by learned counsei for the petitionsr appears to be is alSowed to ::make a representation vvithin a period of two weeks from today to respondent reasonable. Therefore, No.1 raising ai! his grievances and jn tum responctent No.1 shail decide the said representation in an-objective manner within a period of:30 days from the date of receipt of such representation, after considering ail the' f':te;. points raised by the petitioner and taking into account !the order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribuna! in Original Appiicafion No.2745/1989. S) The writ 'petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No orcier as to cosis. -Sd/-, SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Raaj