v:f ^^ cfc^^ In the Hon'ble Hish Court of Chhattissarh. ^^••^f^ Bilasput. '^y^ ^ ^- ^"^•-^- P- (S) No... ..^.f.08.. ...2006 -..-•" ,^v ^^^""' <^\^" y itf' ^"^" ^ Petitioner - Rajkumari W/o M.K. DiUiwar / Aged about 40 years, Asstt. Teacher Primaiy School, Koliyapuri, Distt.Durg R/o Shivpara, Durg (C.G.) (Before Marriage -Rajkumari Deshmukh) Versus Resuondents 1 ^ ^ ^s^' ^' 4- A The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh/ Through Secretary Education Dept. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Dista'ict Education OfGcer, y Durg (C.G.) Disfaict Education OfGcer,/ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education OfGcer/ Chhuriya, Rajnandgaon. ' ^ Writ Petition Under Articles 226/227 of The Constitution Of India for the issuance of WRIT in the nature of MANDAMUS certiorari. Prohibition and for othersuitable writ or writs. order or orders. direction or directions. The petitioner most respectfuUy fumishes the particulars ofthe writ pedtion as under:- KE6H COURT OF CHHAFTESSARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition falNo. 6108 of 2006 Petitioner faijkumari W/o M.K. Dilliwar Versus fteqiondents The State 6ovt. of Chhatt'is9arh & others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Oeputy 6ovt. Advoca-te for the State/respondents. ORDER (8th November, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Deputy Director, Public Education, Rajnondgomn vide order dated 16.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) wherein, it was provided that the petitioner would be granted pay scale of Rs. 975-25-1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-1650/-, after a perk»dof one year. It was further provided that the petitioner would be entitled to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. 2. Simikirly situated employees had opproached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrutive Tribunal. The Tribunal possed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu ond 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others.) 3. It was -further held that the said benefit would be given to all teachers • 'and they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collectively. ^ ^~ •s, 4. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Speckxl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning ttie order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Madhya Praderii State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpurin O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court- after hearing leamed counsel for the pcrties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition ond having regard to the large financial implications, granted one year's time to setfrle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was further observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accorchnce with law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being simibrly situated ond they are accordingly entitted to the same benefit. 5. For the above stated reasons, the petitioner is granted libepty to make a representation to consider ttie case of the petitioner if it stonds w the same footings asper order dated 24.8.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. <& others.) and subsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gront relief accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihot" Judge Boblu