WW sm‘ATE maxms'rRATivE “Taga‘umAk AT JABALmug " OF 1999 0.A. Noe Kushlal Verma, Aged a‘bcut 40 years, $®n o£ Ralcieo ?raga& Vex-ma, By 0.cup:’ Upper Divisioa T@ache‘r,- gosteé in Government Higher seciondm:y $ch001 'bistrict Raigarh 3.1... Sahu, Agea abam: 37 yearg. Son af Heeralal $ahu, By Occupaticm U‘pger Division Teacher” Tribal Gcnzt. Hig‘hervsecon&ary schaci Kharsiya, Digt. Raigarh $unil Kumar Patel, Ageti amut 38 years, Son c£ Shyam Sunder, By Occupation Asgistan‘t Teacher, Gmvernment Eigher $econdary, $Qhcaol Mandeli, Tah. & Dist” Raigarh EDurg& Charan Choudharya Ageti about 40 ye&rs, Ema of Neelamher, By Qccu'gsation A3sistant Teém‘her , yosted at Raig arh APPLICANTS WR $US RESP‘DNDEN’I‘S n 'l‘he State oi Ma‘gdhya £3radesh, threugh ‘u The Secrataz-ym Sehcal Education Depwte ' menu Vallabh Bhawan, My. Bhgpak The Secretary, Tribal Eevelapment i3epartment, Mxé‘ EhOpai The fromissimzer, Tribal Develbpment Department, HJE . Bhmgal The i‘rect9rwama'nisssiclner, Public instrueticns Dapartment, M.Pe 3%opa1 Tha Eeguty §irector, Public lng'w‘uatiang Raigarh a ¢. O° 5 2L $. The Deputy Commissioner, Trib;a;1 Eevelcsyment Bepartmant, Raigazrh §?9LICATION U/S 23 6F THE ADMINI $TRATE Wt? TRIBUNAL AQT ‘ 3.96 .x XI-HC—22 ' Shri D. R. Pate! with Shri Vimlesh B jpai, counsel for the petitionera Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for th State/respondents No.1, 5 & 6. Heard The petitioners have eled this petm‘ n ciaiming the similar benefits as have been given to Asst. Teachers appointed in etween the year 1983-1984 who had approached the Tribunai by tiling Original pplication No.274511989 (decided on 24.81992), wherein Tribunal directed bene ts to be given to all teachers. lt is also stated that the State challenged the said or er before the Supreme Court in SLP. No.6892/1993 which was dismissed vide or er dated 3‘1 .1994. ln number of cases, this Cou has passed orders directing the respondents to consider the cases. Accordingly, this petttion is also disp sed ofw'rth liberty to the petitioners to make representation, if so advised, to cons der their cases on its own merits and perspective. lf the petitioners stand on the sam footings as per order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Trib nal in O.A. No:2?45l89 (Madhukant Yadu and 5d omers Vs. State ofMP. & a hers) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.Pt (Civil) No 6892/93 by order dated 311994, appropriate order would be passed by the re pondents authority. 4/. Tumane £ Sdl- Mohan Shrivastavai Judge Manindi’a