Ct H sl.f's"^^ "•" fRS"'ii'¥^GS ^ i ^^:^ r" H ^s ^W5 ^H in.iii^iu-S^ SL.i^.^'W'wa S ® > i U IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.687-3/2006 PETITIONER ^- iesef 0^-""'^ sc^€^^f'. ..^iF^--' •f\^^.,,•.•••• Anita Singh, Wife of Shri Surendra Singh, Aged about 41 years, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Dhurkot, Block Nawagarh, Distt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^Q ^ 1'''*' /, ^ ^^\.\^» ^Na ^..^°^ ^ \.o a...^^! "'ft'i-.k!' ~ H ^w^l ''•»°%;~"S«AJ'f - ^?y f^^y State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). Director of PubUc Instruction, Raipur (C.G.). The Dista-ict Education Officer, Distaict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The Block Education Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE W£^CajKTOFWHAmS6AWH/IT BILAyUR Shigle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents Petitioner Respondents W. P. (5) No.6868 of 2006 Jayanti t>ubey Versus Stirte of Chhattisgarh & o-thers W. P. fS) No. 6873 of 2006 Anita Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others W.P. (5) No. 6874 of 2006 Sohan Lat Ra'thore Versus Slate pf Chhattjsgarh A o-thers And W. P. f5) No. 6875 of 2006 Versus Harnarayan 5ahu State of Chhatl'isgarh A o+hers Present: Mr. ^shwini Shukta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. OR&ER >th (Passed on 12T" doy of December, 2006) 1. The petitioners were oppointed as Assistant Teacher, wherein, it was provided that the petitioners would be granted pay scale of Rs. 545-10-5^-15-800-ZO-900-Z5-975/-, after a period of two • years. It was further provided that the petitioners would be entitled to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. 2. Writ Petition (5) No.s 6868/2006, 6873/2006, 6874/2006 and W75/200t> are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of law involved in these petitions are common. 3. Sifflilarly sitiKrted employees had approached the AAadhydi Pradesh State ^dministrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others.) 4. It was further- held that the said benefit would be given to all teachers and they should not be compelfed to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit individuafly or collectively. 5. Be'mq ag9rieved, the then State of Maidhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning Iheorder dated 24.8.1992 passed by -the Madhya Pradesh Sta+e Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing leamed counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to +he large financial implications, granted one year's time to sett-le the claim for the arrears without mterest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was further observed that the intervention would work out their ri9hts in accordance with law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1969 is Bablu opplicable to •tihe petitioners bein9 similarly si'tuated and +hey are accordin9ly en-titled to -the same benefit. 6. For the above sta+ed reosons, •the petitioners are 9nmted liberty to make a representa+ion to consider the cases of 1t>e petitioners if it stcmd on the same footmg as per order da-ted 24.8.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu ond 56 others Vs. State of M.P. A o-thers.) ond subsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passed by the Hon'bte Supreme: Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gront relief accordingly. 7. These vwit petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge