HIG§4 CGERT OF CHHiATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Writ’ Petition (S) No. 71173 of 2097 Petitioner Vishram Prasad Nirmaikar aaed 47 years, SIG, Late Guna Ram Nirma5<ar. Assistant Teacher, Guru Ghasidas Govt Prémarv Schooi Jarhabhata, Biiaspur, Biock-Biihé, District Bnaspur (CG). Versus Respondents ‘1‘) State of Chhattksgarh, through Secretary, Schooi Education Department, DKS‘ Duawan, Hhh...nn n ma§pm .r IP‘I‘\ “any. 2) The Director. Pubilo instruction Department, Raipur (CG), 3} District Education Offroer, Biiaspur (CG). 4) Biock Education Qr’ficen Biihar, District Biiaspur {CG}. (Writ Petition under An’icie 226 of ihe Constitution of india) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihom, J. Present: Shri KS. Pawar, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Aiay Dwivedt, Panei Lawyer ferthe State. RAL GREER Wassed on 23rd January, 2008) The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed 0n 28-11-1980 as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scaie of Rs.’i50/- on probation for a period of two years. After compie‘tion of probation, tne petitioner was granted reguiar pay scale W.e.f. 1~7-‘i 982 2) Simiiariy situated empioyees had approached the Madnva Pradestt State Administrative Tribunai. The Tribunai passed t‘ne order on 24a8-‘i 992 in O.A.No. 2745 of 1989 (Madnukant Yadu and 56 others Vs State of MP. & others). 3) it was further heid that the said benefit wouid be given to ail teachers and they shouid not be compeiied to approach the Tribunal for simiiar benefit individually or coliectlveiy. 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had med the Specia: Leave Peiition (Ch/1i) Ne. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24—8- 1992 passed by i‘ne Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunat, Jabatpur in OANO. 2745/89. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing learned counset for the parties, dismissed the Speciai Leave Petition and having regard to the iarge financial impiicatichsj granted one year’s time to settie the ciaim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1 fi§94. it was further observed that the intervention wouid’work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24-8-1 992 passed by the .Tribunai in OANo. 274511 989 is appiicabie to the petitioners being simiiariy situated and they are acoordingiy entitled to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 8'13 of 2007' by order dated 12—2-2007. has granted reguiar pay scale wet. the date of initiai appointment. S) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly 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 Chhattisgarh and another (supra). However, the State is at iiberty to verify the facts or’ appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners is simiiar to that oi the order dated 12—2-2007 passed by this Court in W.P(_S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 7) in View of that this petition is aiiowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri 1 Raju 23