$ENGI F WNW 9 a,€§a/oZ_‘ (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION s No.gqqé [2006 PETITIONERS : K 1. SushilTiwari, Age about38 years, S/o Shri Jagat Narayan Tiwari, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. Middle School, “ Purena, Block - Kartala, Distt. - KOI’ba (C.G.) Aiay Kumar Vera, Age about 39 years, S/o Shri Gaya Ram Verma, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Barpali, Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C..) Jiwan Lal Kawar, Age about 43 years, S/o Ganga Ram Kanwar, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary Schol, Purena, Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C..) Smt.Savi'ta Kashya, Age about 42 years, W/o Shri Banwari Lal Kashyap, Asstt.Teacher, Govt. Girls Primary School, Barpali, Block - Kartala, Distt. - ba (C.G.) Dhansay Patel, Age abut 42 years, S/o Dhansay Patel, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Jhika, Block - Kartala, Distt. — Krba (C.G.) V VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. State GovernmentofChhattisgarh Through :- Secretary, TribalWelfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Korba (C.G.) e W m, W ‘ m G o G ' p Kor o n o wwwrawW&W~W&m (3) x 3. District Education Officer I.T.l., Korba (C.G‘) ,4. Block Education Officer Tahsii — Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) , 5. Joint Director (Funds / Accounts), Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r‘i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrif Pe‘fi'rion (s) No. 5976 of 2006 Single Bench: Hon’bie Mr. Jusfice Safish K. Agnihofri. Shri Ajay Shrivasfava, Advocafe for The pe‘rifioners‘ 5hri Sum” Verma, Panel Lawyer, for fhe S'I'afe/raspondenfs. ORDER (7“1 November, 2006) The following order of fhe Courf was paqsed by Salish K. Agniho'l'ri, J. 1. The pefi'l'ioners were appoinfed as Assisfan'r Teacher by fhe Collec‘l'or (Tribal Welfare) Bilaspdr vide order da'l’ecl 12.03.1987 (Annexure P-1) wherein, in condifion No. 6, i‘l’ was provided 'H'iaf ‘ihe pefifioners would be granted pay scale of Rs. 545-925/-, offer a ‘ period of one year. If was furfher provided fhaf 1'he pefi'l’ioners would be en'l'i'Hed 'l’o fhe fixed pay of Rs. 300/— for a period of one year. . Similarly sifua'i'ed empioyees who were inifially gran'l'ed a fixed pay of Rs. 300/— for a period of one year and af‘i'er comple’i’ion of ‘iwo years period They were granfed of Rs. 545-925/— had approached ‘l'he 'Madhya Pradesh Sfa'i'e Adminis‘i’ra‘iive Tribunal. The Tribunal Pefi'l'ioners Sushil Tiwari & ofhers Versus Respondents Sfufe Govt of Chha'r'risgarh & ofhers q8 passed 'fhe order on 24.8.1992 in 0A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukan‘t Vadu and 56 ofhers Vs. S‘mfe of M.P. & o'l'her's.) 3. If was further held 'I'ha'i' The said benefi‘r would be given +0 a” feachers and ‘fhey should no? be compelled 1'0 approach 'the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collec‘fively. 4. Being aggrieved, 'H'ie 'i'hen S‘tafe of Madhya Pradesh had filed 'lhe Special Leave Pe'l'i'l'ion (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning fhe order da'fed 24.8.1992 passed by The Madhya Pradesh Sfa‘le Adminisfrafive Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Courf affer hearing learned counsel for 'rhe par'ries, dismissed ”the Special Leave Pe'li'rion and having regard ’ro The large financial implicafions, gran'l'ed one year's fime 1'0 sef‘i’le ‘lhe claim for fhe arrears wi'l‘houf inferesf vide order da'l'ed 3.1.1994. I'l' was fur'l'her observed fha'l’ fhe ‘ infervenfion would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. \ 5. For the above stated reasons, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. 5tate of MP. & others.) and subsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme *1? Cour'l' in Special Leave Pe'rifion (Civil) No. 6892/93. The pe‘rifioners ‘ shall be governed by 'l'he orders passed by fhe Tribunal as we“ as by 'fhe Hon'bie Supreme Cour? (supra) accordingly. / 6. For 'the reasons sin-ted above, fhis petition is allowed. No order as ‘ro l / cos‘l’s. l Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge K Subhash