é@ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W 1%. Petitisim (S) No. 1244 0f2&{}8 PETITKHVERS : Triloghan Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Hzunu Yadav age abaut 54 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. School Kilkila, Block Pattthalgaon, DiStt. Jaghpur (CG). VERSUS Siam of Chhattisgarhg though Secmtaxy Educatioa 8c Tribal WsLf‘are Department, DKS Bhawam Raipur (CG). Disiriet Education Officer, Disri. Jashpur (CG). Block Educa’iion Officer Block Patthalgaon (CG). (WRIT PEI l l ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITI ITION OF INDIA) £83: Hou’hle Mr. Satisl: K. Agililmtyi, J.) Present : U)LJ\ Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitiomr. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. N GRAL fWiDER (Passed on 265i of Fehi'ilary, 2008) The: petitioner was initially appoimed as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 106/-. Alier completion of probation, the petitioner was grantad regular pay scalg. Shnilatly situated emnloyess had approached $113 Madhya Pradcsh State Adnlhiistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. T113 Tiihunal passed tho order on 24.08.1992 in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukont. Yadu. and ‘56 others Vs. State of Ml). & Othcrs). It was litrther held. that tho said baizefit would b6 given to all tho teachers and they should hot ha compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit indiVidu ally or collectively. Being aggrieved, the-then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 Lmpngning the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745’89. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court alier hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard. to the large financial iinplieations, granted one year's time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was thither observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in 0A. No, 2745/1939 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. “T i a )h p Leamad camisel appearing fer the patiti'onar submitg that thiS Calm While Cogsidgring the. same iggue: Ln Ram Kunmr Sahu and others Vs. Stata Govt. of Chlmttisgarh and another ‘m Wiit Pgtition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dafed 12.02.2007, has granted ragular pay scale W.e.f. the. data ()f illitial appoimmenf. Learned wunsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that ihis case is squarely mvared by the deciskm of this Cmwt in th‘r: case of Ram Kumar Sahu and athers Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh a11d another (Supra). However, the state is at liberty to varify tho facts of appointment asto whathor tho case of the. gstitim‘ers am similar to that of the ordor dated 1,2022%? passsd by this oom‘t in W3 (S) No. 813 of2Qf)7 (Supra). Ln. View ofthat this petitioai is aliowed in the same terms Lo. petitioher is entitled to the samo relief as was granted by the: Madhya Eradesh State Administratiye Tribunal, Jabaipiir in QA No. 2745/89 (Madhokant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. & othsrs) and subsequently confirmed by ordor dated 03.01.94 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The potitionor shall be governed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon‘bie Supreme Court (supra) accordingly. No order asto costs. S§o k1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri- Judge h ilar. I 4. r, w1..