^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH:SiLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 332 of2S08 Petitioner Dsep Singh Marko, aged about 49 years, S,'o. Shri Ram Singh SVIarko, Head Master (Assistant Teacher) Government Primary Schooi, Medhuka, Btock n'i3rwah!, Dlstrict Bitespur (CG). ssa Bl IKiB! IIB ;E^ Ki .'•.'l'^l 1^1 1 Resoontients KM BM ll! !il• vss ":^!1 !^i<;i lffl:i Versus 1) State of Chhattlsgarh, through Sscretan/, SchooS Education Departnrsent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG'). 2) The Director. Pubiic instruction Departnient, Raspur (CG). 3) District Education Officer, BiSaspur (CG). 4) Block Education Officer, Marwahi, District Biiaspur (CG). (Writ Pstition under Articie 226 of ths Constitution of india) SS: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Aynihotri, J. Present: Sh.ri Dhirendr n'iishra, counss' for ths pstitioner. S'nri A.K. Mishra, Panei Law-yer fw the State. ORAL ORDER (Passeson 22 January, 2008) The petitioner vras initially appointsd as Assistant Teachsr on a frxed pay scais of Rs.150- on probation for a period of two years. After comDletion of Drobation, the petitioner v»'asgranted regular pay scaie. 2) SImiiariv situatsd emolovees had aoproached the iV.adhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai. T'ne Tribunai passed the order on 24-8-1992 in OA.No. 2745 of 1389 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of Rfl.P. & others). 3'i it was further he!d that the said benefit wouid be given to ai! teachers and they shouid not be compeiied to approac'n the Tribunai for simiisr benefit individuaily or coiiective'iy. i S! iW-'l Raju 2-- 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradssh had fiied the Speciai Lsave Petition (Civil) No. 68S2/93 impugning the order dated 24-8-1982 passed bythe Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. Jabaipur in O.A.No. 2745/89. The Hon'bls Supreme Court aSer hearing learned counse! for the parties, dlsmissed the Speciai Leavs Petition and having regard to the larae financiai impiicatlons, grantsd ons year's time to ssttle the ciaim for the arrears without interest vide order dated -3 -a S. 1.1994. it 'was further obsswed that the interv'ention wouid work out their rights in accordance with iaw. This order dated 24-8-1992 oassed bv the Tribuna! in O.A.No. 2745/1989 Is aooiicabie to th®oetinoners belng similariv slfuated and thsy are accordingiy entltled to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the Detitioner submits Shat this Court Vn'hiie considering the same issue In Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. Stafe Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12-2-2007, has grantea' regular pay scais w.e.f. the date of initial appoinfment. S) Learned counse! appearing for ihe parties iointiy submit that this case is sauareiv covered bv the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). Hov/sver, the Stats is at iibsrtv to verifv ihe facts of apoointment asto whether the case of the Detitioner is simiiar to that of the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007 (suprs). 7) in view ofthatthis petition is aiiowed in ihe sams terms. No order as to costs. — — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge