\ 20 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Wrii PetitionLS) Nu. 126 of 2W8 Petitioner Didu Prasad Gupta, Sio. Himanchal Prasad Gupta, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Viilage Pandripani (East), Teh. & Distt. Raigarh (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Secretary, Schedule Tribe and Scheduie Caste Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3) Asst. Cpmmissioner, Trina! Development Department. Raigarh (CG). District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Block Education Omcer. Raigarh, District < Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri \Jinay Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ January, 2003) The petitionerwas initialiy appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs.500/- on probation for a period of three years. After completion of probation, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale. 2) Similarly situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunai passed the order on 24-8-1 992 in O.A.No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others). 3) lt was further held that the said benefit would be given to all teachers and they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunai for similar benefit individually or coliectiveiy. t 1‘1‘ \ t x .r \ , 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had med the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Siate Administrative Tribunal! Jabaipur in O.A.No. 2745/89. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial implications, granted one year’s time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1 .1994. it was further observed that the intervention would work out their rights in' accordance with law. This order dated 24-8-1 992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 274511989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12-2-2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. 6) Learned counsel appearing forrthe parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. state Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). However, the State is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 7) in View of that this petition is ailowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/— . Satish K. Agnihotri: Judge Raju