.^'ll;.-^'":<%',':':'::y'^.'i'^ . ' ' •/.::^. ;•.:.,. "".-•'^. :,;:.;l!'';l.'^?::'::::s::\':\7'^;':-'.^~'^ lit':~lHE^STB^:ja I^IR&a^:;2ro aro^i'A^.TAB&^^ ?.-'•:,;, 9SSS& y^:^^^ ".K^Sgig OEigin al _^?plisat.i cro. Bo.. £4 6f 1892, .g3p,lie®tei- 1. JSKHILESHKER SHAa.iA- SON OT SHRE C.K.SHABtA,,ageaabo<.tt.22years, ,. Upper ra.vi sion leaoher<> Srlbal S-i&lfare D¥a:i::tea-it,, r/o •a.llage Kodabhafc, Kaaker. dstt, Bastas M.P» 2. ai.WV SHiSsTKAR S/o Shri chelarsn^ 33QS. aboul: .22 yrs» Uppsr lA\d.sioR Seac'neEy •w.ll & PO Shil^.i.CharaT.a Ij.st.t Bastar ver&y s ai s i 1. 'Aie Stat-e of M.p, - ttie seae'etary ^'.Cribal .'..jelfare Sqsarteiejit M.P» Bastar Vlkas Adimj afci Kshtriya pradhikarar- j ^<3alpur, 3. ry.EirectBr psachaya't & Sod al 'A-el fare D^> artei ai t Bastar,- .loctor Bas'i-ar» E'LICA'rjON Ul-IISR SSG'SON 19 05' 2HE AH'IIHIS TRA'Ei: '/S SmHJl-IM.S AGI ,l985» ^l;:ss^i^^S^'^^Si?::®SfaSi^%EKJE;iJtE@;'S^®gu5?^®^ . ^:^;.3S?%?:ri:i%»h::r'i®?N.¥S'S^S"B?^;?:®^Mi!^^ •K^': ;^i^i^^^;:s^ L^^^"-/' ':LL yiGJlCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR : CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRn^FSTniONjS]Lll&51AOF.JOO§., PEimQNEBS RESPCWIDENTS Versus Akhileshker Sharma & another The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & olhers "5 Present: Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents. (ORAL QRDER) (Passed on 7th July, 2006) The petitioner No.1 was appointed as Upper Dwision Teacher vide order dated 08-02-1990 and the petitioner No.2 was appointsd as Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 16.10.1989. The services of the petitioners along with 16 other similarly situated Upper Division Teachere were terminated by order dated 26-12-1991 (Annexure E). Some of the Upper Divisfon Teachers, whose services have been terminated by order dated 26-12-1991 have approached ttie Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in various applications. All the applications along with O.A. No. 1592/1991 was allowed by order dated 13-01-1992. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents agrees with the facts as stated by learned counsel for ttie petitioners. Leamed counsel appearing for ttie parties submit jointly that this matter may be disposed of in terms ofttie orderdated 13-01-1992, passed by Madhya Pradesh IIHIII r State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1592/1991. The relevant portion of the Order dated 13-01 -1992 reads as follows: "6. The applications are allowed. The impugned order terminating the services of the applicante are hereby quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate all the applicants and also pay them back wages. Nothing in this order shall preclude the respondents from resuming any fresh action with due advertence to the foregoing observation against the applicants. In case the respondents stilt feel that the applicants did not fuffil the essential qualillcations/requirements, they can proceed to take action according to law after giving the appficants proper opportunity of submitting their explanation. There shall be no order as tocosts." (3) Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order terminating the services ofthe petftioners is hereby quashed. Since the petitioners have been working on the strength of the stay order granted by the Tribunal, there is no question of payment of any back-wages. The respondents are at tiberty to take action in accordance with law, after affording the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -^^