IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.GI W.P. (S) N0. /2006 PETITIQNER ^ ^' L -v3.^^ ••••:^3^''^.--' ^' ..--1 ^A ^sy^^ Lekhram Sahu Aged about 40 Years, S/o Late Shri Kartikram Sahu Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Kurrutola, Block Daundi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONHENTS ^~ ib .,T.\S^^ ffA>'>°' '• E.^10^'"'"' VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instruction Department Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer Durg District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226*S^ OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ^A HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARI-) AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. W.P. (5) No. 6880 of 2006 Petitioner : Lckhram Sahu Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt-isgarh & others W. P. (S) No. 6881 of 2006 Petitiener : Siji Ram Keram Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others And W. P. (5) No. 6883 of 2006 Petitioner : Meliattar Ram Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhatt-iS9arh & others % Present: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate for the petitioners. ' Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the re^ondents/State. ORDER (Possed on 12rt doy of Gecember, 2006) 1. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher, wherein, it was provided that the petitioners would be gnmted pay scale of Rs. 975-25-1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-16K)/-, after a period of one year. It was further provided that the petitioners would be entitted to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/-for a period of one year. 2. Writ Petition (S) No.s 6880/2006, 6881/2006 and 6883/2006 are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of taw involved in these petitions are common. 3. Similarly situated emptoyees had approached the Macthya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal pa&sed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & ottiers.) 4. It was further hetd that the said benefit would be given to all teachers and they should not be competled to approach the Tribunal forsimilar benefit individually or cotlectively. 5. Being aggrieved, the then Storte of Madhya Pradesh had filed the ^?eciat Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning •the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The t-fon'ble Supreme Court after hearmg leamed coun^l for the parties, dismissed -rtie Special Leave Petition and having r'egard to the large financial implications, granted one year's time to settfe the claim for the arrears without mterest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was further observed that the intervention would work out -their rights in accordance wi+h law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is opplicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they ar® <»ccordin9lyentitted to the aime benefit. --<-1, 6. For the above s-hated reasons, the petitioners are gronted tibe^ to make a representation to consider the cases of the petitioner if it stdnd on the same footing as per order dated 24.8.1992 by the AAadhya Pradesh State AdmMstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others.) and subsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passed by •ttie Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gromt relief accordingly. 7. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge Babki