M EGH wURT OF CHHATTISGABH AT BELASE’UR Writ i’etition (S) No, 1238 of 2%}? PETETIGNERS : 1. Bhagwat Ram Rams Sm Shri Meghnath Ramie Age aboui 58 yaars, Head Masier, GQVt. Primary Schooi, KiShna, Block Doundilohara, Dish: Burg (CG). 2. Mohan Lal Sahu Sx'o Sha' R. Sahu age about 56 years, Asstt. Taachar Rio Naggutola, Pogt Rangadabri, Distt. Durg (CG) VERgUS : l. State of CILhattisgarlg through Secretary, EducatiOn & Tribai Dcpartmeni, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. District Edumtion Officer, District Durg (CG). RES?ONDENTS (WRIT PETHTON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA) atish K A nilwtri J.) Prawn? : Shn' Somkzmt Vennm Advncatg fur ths psiitionem Smi. Smiia Ghai§ Panai Lawyer for the Siam/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passegi on 2am of February, 266s) 1. Tm petitiomars were initially appoimed as Assistani Teadmrs on flxecl pay of Rs. 180f-. Alier completion of probation, tho petitionorg ware granted regular pay Scaie. 2. Similarly situated ompioyeos had approached the Madhya Pradesh Stats Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Triimnal passed the order on f” 24.08.1992 i1: GA. No. 2743/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs’.’ State of MP. 8c Others.) If was iimhar hold thai the Said, benefit would be. given to all the teachers and they should not be oonipglled to approach tho Tiibuhal for similar benofof individually or coiloctiveiy. Baing aggiiovoti the than Staio of Maohya Pradesh had filed tho Special Loam Potition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impughing the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Fradosh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in QA. No. 2745/89. Tho Hon’ble Supreino Court alter hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the laige tinanoial implications, granted one year‘s time to settle the olaim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was iinther observed that the intervention would work out rheir righls in aooordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in 0A. No. 274571989 is applicable to the 3'4 K /, 4‘ . -' :;.~(,, H . $ kn p petitioners baing similarly situated and they are acm‘rdingly entitled to the same. bemtit. Laamed munssl appearing for the patiiioners submits that this Court while consideri11g thg same issue in Rm: Kumar Sahu and athers Vs. State Govt. of Chlmitisgarh and aiiother in. Writ Petiticn (S) N0. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.()2.2007, haS granted regular pay seale wef. the date of initiai appoimment. Learned couasel appearing for the partiee jeintly gubmit that {hie ease is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and otherS Va State Govt. of Chhattisgarh am! another (Supra). However, the state is at liberty to veri§1 the facte of appointment asto Whether the case of the petitioners are similar to that of the order dated 12.62.2007 passed by this court in W13. (S) N0. 8 13 of2007 (Supra). ht View ot‘that this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioners are entitled to the same relief as was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunali Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukaitt Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of Ml). r35 others) arid, subsequemly centirihed by order dated 03.D1.94 passed by the Hoh'ble Supreme Couit in Special Leave Petitieh (Civil) Ne. 6892/93. The petitiOheis shall he governed hy the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon‘hle Sufirenie Court (supra) aeeordingly. No order 1 asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge é