/a3T-,^' Ui<?"5U f^-n! IOT r^^ niiBsri ^^rwt^i ^jf-i Wrif Petnion s'Si No.. 381 o{_200i Petffioner Gotani Sinffh Pottam, aaed about 49 years, S/o. Shri Sukhram Singh, Head Master (Assistant Teacher) Government Boys Schoos, Dhobhar, Btock Marwahi, District Biiaspur (CG). Resoondenis Versus •',) Stats of Chhattisciarh, through Secretarv, School Educatlon DeDartment, D.K.S. ihawan, Raipur (CG). 2} The Director, Pubiic Instruction Department, Raipur (CG). 3) District Education Officer. Biiaspur (CG). 'r^i 4'i Siock Education Officer. D!'strictBiSaspur(CG). Manii'ahi, (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constituiion of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prssenf: Shri Dhirsndr K4'shra, counssl fo.r t'ns petitionsr. Shri A.K. iWishra, Panei Lawyer fortheSSate. ER (Passedon 22"s Jgnuary, 2008) The oetitioner was initialiv aooointed as Assistant Teachsr on a fixed pay scaie of Rs.150- on probation for a period of two ysars. Afier completion of probation, the petitioner was granted reguiar pay scaie. 2) Simiiariy situated empioyees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunai passed the ordsr on 24-8-1^2 in O.A.NO. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others). 3) It was further he!d that the said benefit w>uld be given to aii teachers and they shouid not be compeiied to approach the Tribunai for similar bensfit individualiy or coilectively. B^liII lii;';-i ti!^!l B8 IH .!s[-:.. W^] K,- if:', -. z- 9-' 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhva Pradesh had fited the Special Leave Petition (Civii) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur in O.A.No. 2745/89. The Hon'bie Supreme Court after hearing iearned counsel for the parties, dismissed ths Specia! Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial implications, granted one year's time to settie the ciaim for the arrsars without inferest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was further obseroed thai the ir.ter.'ention wouid work out thelr rights in accordance With iaw. This order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the Tribunai in O.A.No. 2745/1989 is applica&le to the petitioners being simiiariv situated and thev are accordingiv entitied to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the petmoner submits that this Court whiie considerina ths same issue In Ram Kumsr Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 bv order dated 12-2-2007, has grantsd regulsr pay scaia w.e.f. ths date of initiai appointment. 6) Learned counse'. appsaring for t'ne parties jolntly submit that this cass is sguarsiv covered bv the decssion ofthis Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh and another ('suora). However. the State is at iibsrtv to verlfv the facts of appoinfment asto whether the case of the oentioner is simiiar to that of ths ordsr dated 12-2-2007 oassed bv this Courf in W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 7) in view of that this Detition Is aliowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge