SSIIiii BENGti ^'£7§^K~^ J^ €: .S- \Waf- I_N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^/c7^ 72006 PETmQNE]^ \^ -..-•••:"^ ^•-••:>^^.- ^"y^"'^- ...•••'"<A^-"''/. \\---"' ^y ^ ' ..0< ~^^ ><^ ^ 1. Dehman Nayak, s/o Harishankar Nayak,Aged about 46 years, Primary School, Rampur, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) / 2. Kunj Bihari Pradhan, s/o Arjun Pradhan, aged about 41 years, ' Primary School, Jamjuda, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) /3. Panchram Seth, S/o Sukhdev Seth, aged about 41 years, Primary School, Pendrawan, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) Shiv Charan Bhoi, S/o Nakul Prasad Bhoi, aged about 40 years, Primary School, Pendrawan, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) j 5. Chhabilal Bagh S/o Gurudev Singh Bagh, aged about 43 years, Govt. High School, Bhukel, Block- Basna, District Mahsamund (C.G.) ^-6. Usat Kumar Pareshwar S/o Suklal Pareshwar, aged about 40 years, Govt. Middle School, Bhaskarapali, Block - Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) i 7. Shakeela Bano W/o Gulal Khan, aged about 41 years Govt. Primary School, Baitari, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) •' 8. Arun Pradhan S/o Raidhar Pradhan, aged about 40 years, Govt. High School, Pirda, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) ^ 9. Govind Pradhan S/o Jagbandhu Pradhan, aged.about 46 years, Govt. Primary School, Barnaidadar, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) y 10. Madhuri Sagar, D/o Andriyas Sagar, aged about 42 years, Govt.Primary School, Tarekela, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) sissssssssssc&ss RESPONDENTS 11. Tijram Pareshwar, S/o Shri Suklal Pareshwar, aged about 37 years, Govt. Primary School, Bhikhapali, Block- Pithora, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) Versus /^ / State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Department of Higher Education, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) -3) The Commissioner Publication and instruction Department, Raipur (C.G.) 4) The District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLES 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AWRTT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRTT IN THE LIGHT NATURE KE6H COURT OF CHHATTtSSARH AT EELASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 6102 of 2006 Petitioners Dehmon Noyak 5/o Harishonkar and others Versus Re^iondents State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Single Bench: 1-lon'bleMr.JusticeSalish K. Agnihotri. Siri S.C. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Oeputy 6ovt. Advocate for the State/reqaondents. O R b E ft (8tb November, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioners we.re appointed as Assistant Teachers wherein, it was provided that the petitioners would be granted pay scale of Rs. 545-925/-, after a period of one year. It was further provided that the petitioners would be entitled to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. 1 2. Similarly situated employees wiho were initially granted a fixed pay of t. Rs. 300/- for a period of one year ond after completion of two years period they wer«gronted of Rs. 545-925/- had opproached the Atodhya Pradedi 5tate Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal possed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. <& others.) 3. It was further held that the said benefitwould be given to all teochers dnd they should not becompelled to opproach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or coltectively. 4_ 4. Being aggrieved, the -Hien State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Speciai Leave Petition (Civil) No...6892/93 impugning •the order dated 243.1992 passed by the AAddhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpjr in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing tearned counsel for the parties, dismissed the ^)ecial Leave Petition ond having regard to the large financial implications, granted one year's time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It wos further observed that the intervention would work out their rights iri accordance with law. This order ctated 245.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordinglyentitled to the same benefit. 5. For the above stated reasons, the writ petition is ollowed <md the petitioners are granted liberty to make a representation to consider the cases of the petitioners pn the same footing as per order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the AAadhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, JoAxxtpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhutent Yadu ond 56others Vs. State of MP. & others.) and ajbsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passedbythel-lon'bleSupremeCouptin Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. 6. There diall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sarish K. Agnihotri Judge BAIu