^'>&... c !/'^ -3 IN THE HIQH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILaSPUR , CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION BO. -LSffl /2002 PETI'FIONER: 1. State 'o-C Chhaftisgarh through The Secretary, Higher Educa-tion Department, Govt.pf ChKatitisgarti D.K.S; Bhau'an Man-fcralaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissloner, Higher ^ Education Department, Education Dire.ctorata, Government P.G. Cotlege Gampys,;; District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Principal, Govt. I'5 College Ambi-Kapur, Dtstrict /Surgu] a Chftatti5garli; , . VERSUS Murlidhar Sing h, Sged about 59 years, . S/o.Late Sukhdeo Singh, Sports Of.ficer, GoYernment . E.G.CoiIege, AmBikapur, Disfrt'ct.^Surgyja, .Chhattj-sgarh treiT^BETlETI^UroERABTICI.E 226/227 OETHE^ 0^^l ^%^^;'^:'.'-...;: '"•'.• : RESPOHDEHTS: XI-HP T3f •^rai?ra, ^ftOT®,fr<ii<ilp 3ff^?r xra^ _..(*>...B.i^&^••H^ 2002- tt>l^<-l41-l ^WvV^ fe^ ^R?t ^sipOTSii^n Sil^l^t fN??3iitw ^RR) •«! sn^r ^'wi'sR Heard Shri Ayaz State/petitioners. |ved, Govt. Advocate for the The State by this petition|filsd under Section 226/227 of the Constjtution of India has chaiie^ged the order datect 20/05/200; passed in Griyiriui' Application No.^59 of 2002 by the Mudhya Pradesh State Administrative Trjbunal, Rc^ipur Bench by which theapplication of the responden+ herein was 4'lowsd sayi'ng that in Sirailar O.A. No.3104 of 2000 (Krishna 6opal| Tripathi Vs. State of AA.P. and 4 others) the Tribunal allowed.'}heir petition and the directic'ns contained iri the order pdssed in the sai^ case shall opply mutatis- mutanefis in the; preseot case also. We have heard learned c^unsel appearing for the State / petitioners. On enquir/, learned counsel nppearing for the State has net been able tapoint out as to wheth^r any appeal hos been fited againjst XI-F r\ 3(1^1 ^il K-li't' 3tl|RI al+lw^f^f B-ujssh' TS? •^ll'illfl'M, aTilwis, fa'ni'My 3n^?L?3^ c6.<pa flwcti a»Hi<o 200S. ft^T' 311^1 i^nwHto the order passed by the Tribuna'l Even otiierwise, Mr. Naved o;rque4 State is that the Sports Officer i^ the teacher. The crgument of the of the judgment of the Hon'bie fa\ Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultui\ •n' (1997) 8 SCC 350 in which it ha^ Physicai Teacher comes within the entitied of all the benefits available of this, we do not find Oiny iilegalit; learned Tribunsil. The petition thsrefore, liab!e to be dismissed. It Sd/- ChiefJustfce <*ii''<!<ri<il-f 4w<A" 4 fstzt <.Ri<si< ^ SlPgH 3D^[ in Krishna 6opal Tripatiii's case. that the jnain grievance sf *he not come within the definition of itate counsel has no force in view pex Court in the matter of P.S. il University and ano'ther reported been categoricaily held 1+iat the Idefinition of a teacher and he is jto a teacher. TTierefore, in view or infirmity in .the order of ths |as no merit and the same is, s accordingly dismissed. Sdi- L.C.BHADOO Judge j]T^ ^Fa^ ^ u