<^ HUOH COURT OF CaiHAmSQARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSl N0.22/2008 PETITIONER Versus RESPOBDENTS 3. Dusttyaat Nath Swatiikar, a^ed about 44 years, S/o.ShriJeevan Lal Swamkar, Assisteat Teacher, Pmnaiy School, Ui^a, Post Kudiu-mal, Block Korba, District KoAa(CC^ State ot CKhattisgarh Through Secretaiy, Schopl Education Department, D.K.S.Bbawaii, Ratpur(GG) The Direetor, Public Instruction Department, Raipur (CG) Assistaut Coiimussioner, Tribal and Welfare Departaaeat Korba Block Bducation Officer, Korba, Distnct Korba (CG) ^rauT PETITION imoiERARmci,B22e OFTHB eoiitenTxmoN OP IKDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr Satish K. Aenihotri. J.l Shri K.S.Pawar, counsel for fhe petitioner. SItri Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAl.ORDER (Passed oa tlils 4th day ofJaauary 2008), The petitioncr was appoiated as Assistant Teacher by the Coltector fTribal Welfare) Bilaspur vide ordcr dated 23td June 1983 •^Aimexure Pl) whereid it was provided that the petftloner would be granted pay scale of Rs. 546-925/-, after a period of one year. It was further proyided ftiat fhe petitioaer would be entitted to fhe fixed pay ofRs. 300/- fcr a pcriod ofoneyear. 2. Similarly situated eiuplcyeeswlio we»e initialty granted a fixed pay of Rs. 300/ - for a peiiod of one year and after coinpletion oftwo years period, they were granted pay scale (rfRs. 545-935/-, 2L-1 -r had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Admuustrative TribuaaL TheTribuiial passed the order on 24.08.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 Others Vs. Stete of M.P. aad Others). ~ 3. It was further held that tfae said beaeflt wotild be given to all teachers aud they should not be compeUed to approach fhe Tribunal forsimilar benefit iadividzially or coUectively. 4. Being aggrieved, tbe fhen State of Madhya Pradcsh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civi^ No. 6892/93 iiapugniug flie order dated 24.08.1992 passed by fhe Madhya Pradesh State Adimnisteative Tnbunal, Jabalpxu- in O.A. No. 2745/89. Tfae Hon*ble Supreiue Court after heariug teamed counsel for the parties, disnussed the Special Leave Petttfan aad hainng regaad to fhe lai^e fiiiancial impMcations, graated one year's time to setfle fhe claim for fhe arrears wifhout iuterest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was farther observed that the intervention would work out their rights ia accordao.ee with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal iaO.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners bemg similarfy situated aad fhey are accordingty entitled to fhe satae benefit. ^ 5. Por the above stated re^oas, thc petitioner is entitled to the saaae reUef as graated by the Madhya Pradesh Stete Adnunistrative Tribuual, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu aad Others Vs. State of M.P. & Ofh.ers) aad subseguently coufinned by order dated 3.01.1994 passedbythe Hon'ble Supreme Court ia Special Leave Petition (Civi^ No, 6892/93. ThepetitionershaU be ^ -s- St^una govemed by fhe oiders passed by ttie Tnbuaal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreiae Coitrt (Supra) accoidiagly. 6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is aUowed. No oider as to costs. / y Satish K. Agnihotri Judge S ' 'li ^-:. . il ^ .