HIGH COURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PET1TION fS) No. 3811 of2(W7 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Ku. Ludgard, Ag^ about 62 years, Dau^rtw of Late Paulus, retu-ed Head Mistras, Muktidata Middle School, Larangi, Post QfiBce Umko, District Ambiltapur (Chhattis^rh). 2. Ku. Pratibfaa Grace Tigga, Aged about 46 years, Dau^iter of Shri Patras Ti^a, Assistant Teacher, Mirictidata Middle Schod Larangi, Post QfiBce Uiako, District Ambikapur (Clihattisgaita). 3. Leos Ekka, Aged about 34 years, Son of Shri Dhan Sai Ekka, Assistant Teachsr, Muktidata Middle School, Larangi, Post QEBce Umko, District Ambikapur, (Chhattisgarh) 4. Mrs. Leoni Xess, Aged about 38 years, Wife of Sliri Leos, Assistaat Teachw, Mtiktidata Middie SchooL Larangi, fosi Qffice Umko, District Ambikapur (Chhattisgaih). VERSU8 1. State of Chhattisgaa'ta, through Secretary, Tnbal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Commissioner, Tribal Wel&re Dq>artment, District Ambikapur (ChhattisgM-h). 3. Catholic Sacisthan Siugiija, Uttar Puri» Parikshetra, Ihrough Nn'deshak, Bish(y's House, AsaSaikafw (Clihat&garh) WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'nTUTION OF INDIA Stade Bench : Hon'Me Justfee gairi SaUsh K. Aenfflwtal. Present: Shri Anupam Dubey, Advoeate for the petfticttMrs. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govfc Advocate forfhe State/respondent No, land2. ORDER (Passed on 4th day of July, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appeazmg for the petitioiiere aubmits that flie petitftMier No. l is the retired Head Mistress and petitioner No. 2 to 4 are teachers working in fhe respondent No. 3 Institute. The petitioners are enitifled to '^ grant offhe Fifth Pay Connnission in the li^rt oflfae jadgneiA and order dated 6.2.2007 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. A. Lall Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Otheis (W.P. No. 4108 of2005) with olfaer connected matters. 2. Leamed eounsel fiuther submits thatthis case is squarely covCTed on facts as well as on question oflaw by flie decision ofttas Court in tiie matter of Smt. A. Lall Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & olfaere aad other comiected matters (supra). 3. Leamed counsel appearing for Ifae respondent No. 1 and 2/State submits that the petitioners have not filed any document indicating asto whefher the petitioniers are appointed within fhe sanctiwied pod and the sdiool is Goverameiit aided. 4. In view ofthat, the writ petition is allowed in &e same teims passed by tius Court in fce matter of Smt. A. LaU Vs. State of Oiha<tt%aih & Others and other connected matters (supra), subjeet to verifflcation of fhe fact asto whelfaer tfae respondent No. 3 Institute is a Oovenanent aided school and the petitioners are teachers withinIfae sanctioned streagth. Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge Amit