fe^ COIIR.T OF CHHATTISGARH A.T BIIASPl.TR WiitPettyoii(S)No,ll(^of200§ PETITIONERS RESPQNDENTS 1. Babulal Patel, aged about 42 }/ears, son of sfari Ram Lal Patel, working as Assistant Teacher, Go\7t. GMs Primaty School Baloda Bazar Vikas Kharid Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Yogendra Jaiswal, aged about 42 years, son of Sliri Harishankar^ Working as ^sistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Malidih, vikas Kiiand Kasdot, Distt»Raipur (00). 3. Ramphal Sahu, aged about 45 years son of Shri Manbodhi, worldiig as Assistaiit Teacher, JIiabri, Viaks kliand Kasdol, Distt.Raipur(CG). 4. Kusum Lal, aged about 44 years, son of Sliri Pum Ram, working as Assistaat Teacher, Primary School, Semariya, Vikas Khand, Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG). 5. Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 50 years, son ofShri Tribhuwa Jaiswal, working as Assistaiit Teacher, Govt. Priniary School Chakarboy, vikas khand Kasdol, Distt. Raipur(CG). 6. Ramswaroop Kaushik, aged about 45 yearc son of Shri Ram Kaushik, working as Assistiint Teacher, Primar)7 School, Korradih^ vikas khand Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG). 7. Dham Ram , aged aboirt 45 ycar^ soo of Shri Saiit Ram, working as Assistant Teacher^ Govt. Primary School Devmng, vikas kliand Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG). 8. Rukhinan Singii, aged about 40 years son of Shri Muni Siiigli, working as A_ssistaiit Teacher Govt. Primary School Junwani, vikas khand Bilaigarh Distt. Raipur (CG). 9. Jyoti Lal, aged about 47 years, son ofSliri Brylal, working as ^Ajssistant Teacher, Govmment Girls Primary School Parsadih, vikas kliand Bilaigarli, Distt. Raipiir (CG). 10. Murari Das, aged about 47 years, son ofShri Balram Das, working as Assigtant Teacher, Govenmient Primaty School Chicholi, vikas khand Bilaigarh^ Distt. Raipur (CG)< ^HERSUS 1. State of ClAattisgarl^ tlirougli Secretary, School Ediication Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG)> 2. The District Edueatioii Officer Rjiipur, District Raipur (CG). (WRTT PETITTON TJNDER ARTICI£226 OF TIffi CONSTmjHON OF INDIA) (SB: RoiifS»leMr. Satish K. Agiuhofri, J.) Present : Shri F.S- Khare, Advocate fbr tlie petitioners, Slm A.S. ^aclihwaha, Deputy Advocafe General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed ori 21st ofFebnaaiy, 2008) 1. The petitioiiers were mitialty appointed as Assistant Teadiers on fixed pay ofRs. 150/-. Afier completion of probatioii, the petitioners were granted regiilar pay scaie. 2» Similariy situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Admmistrative Tribimal, Jabalpur. The Tribimal passed the order on ^ SSSK^^ ^Mia^. 7. 24.08.1992 in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Stafe ofM.P. & Others.). It was flirther held that the said beiiefif would be given to all the teachers and they should iiot be compelled to approach the Tribimal for similar benefit individiially or collectively. Bemg aggrieved, the then State ofMadltya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24.08J992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur iii O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Siipreme Court after hearing coimsel for the parties, disniissed the Special Leave Petition and havmg regard to the large financial implications, granted oiie year^s time to settle the daim for the arrears without mterest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was fiirther observed that the mtenreiition would work out their righfs in accordaiice with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners beiiig similariy situated and they are accordingly eiititled to the same benefit. Leamed eounse! appearmg for the petitioners submits that this Court while coiisidermg the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govi. ofChhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 b}/ order dated 12.02.2007, has graiited regular pay scale w.e.f the date ofinitial appointment. Leaoied couiisel appearmg for the parties jomtly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decisioii ofthis Court in the case ofRam Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt, of Chliattisgarh and asiother (Siipra). However, the state is at liberty to verify the facte of appointment asto whether the case ofthe petitioners are siiiiilar to that ofthe order dated 12.02.2007 passed by tliis court in W.P. (8) No. 813 of2007 (Supra). Iii view ofthat this petition is allowed isi the same temis i.e. petitioners are eiititled to the same relief as was graiited by the Madhya Pradesh State Admmistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukaiit Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others) and siibsequently confimied by order dated 03»01.94passed by the Hoi^ble Supreme Court m Special Leave Petition (Civi!) No. 6892/93. The petitioners shall be govenied by the orders passed by the Tribimal as well as by the Hon?Ble Supreme Court (supra) accordisigly. No order asto corf:s, Sd/- Sarish K. Agnihotri Judge