HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASF§R Wrii Petition (S) No. 7172 cf 2397 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ino‘ia) SB: HOn’bie Mr. Satis'n K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri KS. Pawan counsetforthe petitioner. Shri Amnd Dubev. Pane: Lawyer forthe State. 9%L ORgER (Fassed on 23'“ danuaryizms) 1 The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed on 19-1-1977 as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scaie of Rs.t50i— on probation for a period of two years After compietion of probation. the petitioner was granted reguiar pay seaie. 2) Simiiariy situated emptoyees ‘nad approached the Mahya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai. The Tribunat passed the order on 24—8-1 §§2 in OIA.No. 274?) of 1989 (Madhukant Yao‘u and 56 others Vs. State of MP & others), 3) it was further hetd that the said benefit wouid 'oe given to alt teachers and they shouid not be oompeiied to approach the Tribunai for simiiar benefit individuaiiy or coiiectiveiv. 4) Being aggrieved, the then 5tate of iv‘iadhya Pradesh had fried the Soeciai Leave Petition (Civil) No. 68§2I93 impugning the order dated 24—8— 1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai. Jabaipur in l d 9eti€ioner Guiam Ahmed, aged about 55 years Slo Late Munir Ahmeci: A$sistant Teabher/Govt. Prémary Schoci. Nayapara, Chakarbhatat Biock BHha, District Biiaspur (CG) Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhai'iisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Desartment D‘K‘S. Bhawan Raépur (CG). 2) The Dérectar, Public instruction Department) RaipuMCG) 3) Dismcf Education Officer, Biiaspur (CG). 4) Biock Education Omcey, Biihar‘ District Bilaspur (CG) OANO. 2745/89 The Hon’bie Supreme Court afier hearing iearned counsel for the parties, dismissed the Speciai Leave Petitien and having regard to the rarge fmanciaX imphoat‘scns. granted me year’s time to same the claim for the arrears w§thout interest vide order dated Ski r1994. it was further abserved that the intervention wouid work out their rights in accordance with iaw. This order dated 24-8~'i§92 passed by the Tribunai in QANQ 2745/1 98g is applicable to the petitioners being similariy situated and they are accordingiy entitied to the same benent. 5) Learned counsei‘appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court White considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt or” C'nhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) Not 818 of 2907 by order dated 12—2—2007, has granted reguiar pay soaie wet. the date of initiai appointment. o) Leamed oounsei appearing for the parties iointiv submit that this case is squareiy covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs, State Govt. of Chhattisgarn and another (supra) However} the State is at iiberty to verify the facts of appointment astowhether the case of the petitioners is similar to that of the order dated 12—2-2007 passed by this Court in WPIS) No. 815 oi 2907 (supra) 7} in View of that this petition is aiiowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Satisii K. Agnihotri Judge Sdl— Raid