} HIbH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A ! BILASPUR Writ Petition Nu. 1313 of2068 l i 5 VERSUS Department DKS Bhawan, Ralpur (0G) 2. The Assistant Comrmsmoner Tnbal & Welfare Department Ralgarh (0G) 3. Block Educatmn O$cer Kharsm, Dismct Ralgarh (CG) ' (WRIT PETITION UNDFR ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONgTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB. Hon'ble Mr. «aush K. Agmhom, J.) Present : l Shri Anil Mourya, Advocatg for the petitioner. Shn Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29m of Feimlary, 2008) The pgtitioner was initially appointed as Asgistgmt Teacher on fixed pa’y of Rs. 100/-. A£er completion of probation, the petitioner was gamed reguler pay scale. Simiiarly situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.08.1992 in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others.) It was further held that the said benefit would be given to all the teaohers and they should not be compelled to approaeh the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collectively. i Being aggrieved the then State o Madhya Pradesh had filed the Spemal Leave Petition (Civd) No 6 92103 impugmng the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court alter hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large tinancial implications, granted one year’s time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was further observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA Nor 2745/1989 is applicable to the "\“\ 4 ) i l i i l l t l i i l l i i i l t z i l i i i i 1 f gnTITIONERi RESPOND NITS : l. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education i l I Vidya Dhar Sidar S/o Shri Harihar Prasad Sidar aged about 53 years Upper Dmsmn Tdacher Government Middle School Bhupdeopur Block Kharsta District Raigarh (CG) g i i a‘ .i J I i petitionem being similarly simated and they are $ccord§ngly antitled to %the émne benefit. I lLearned counsel appearing fdr the petiti ner submits that. this Conn § YVhile considering the same issue in Ram Kumat Sahu and others Vs. - $tate Govt. of Chhattisgarh and’another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of v g ciété i007 of by initial order appointment. dated, 12.02.2007, hag game: regular' pay scale w.e.f. the I iLieamed , counsel appearing for the parties jointiy = submit that this case is State Govt; of Chhattisgarh and another (Supra). wjhether however, the the case state of is the at petitioner liberty to is verify similar the to facts that of of appointment the order dated asto ’ i j 1292:2007 passed by this couit in W‘PA (S) No 8 13 of 2007 (Supra). isiquarely covered by the decision ofthis Colin in the case ofRam Kumar Semi and others 'Vs. In; view 0mm this petition is allowed in theisame terms i.e. petitioner is entitled to the same relief as’was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tiiblmal, Jahalpur in O.A.;‘No. 2745/89 (Madhukant adu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. V&_ others) and subsequently coniiimed by order dated 03.01.94 passed by the Hon’hle Supreme Coilrt in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The petitioner shall be governed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (supra) anecrdingly, subject to verification of the farts No order asto costs. L I Satish K. Agnihotri .v v Judge, v .r’ Y "-vaa&er, . 7,7r Mi: