IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ~ WRIT PETITION (S) No. “7co?— /2006 PETITIONER /Yogeshwar Prasad Patanwar, Son of Shri Hargovind Patanwar, 99 " a, Aged Tsacher, about Government 40 years, Assistant Prirnary School, Dhaniya, Block Masturi, DisttBilaspur (C.G.) ‘ \‘x‘w VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. /State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mif; Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). Director of Public Instruction, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The Block Education Officer, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ,1 \ (j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sing!e Bench: Hon‘ble Mn Jus’ricz safish K. Agriiho'tr'i. W. P. (5) Na. ?002 of 2006 Pe‘l'i‘i'ioner : Yogeshwar‘ Prusad Pa'fanwar Versus Responden'rs i Sfa‘i'e of Chha‘f'fisgarh <34 what‘s Presan'i': Mr. Ashwani Shukhn, Advocu‘re for 141a pe'i'ifioner‘. Ms. Swim Jain, Panel Iawyzr' for 'rhe responden‘rs/sfa'fe. O R D E R (Passed on 15’“ day of December, 2006) 1. The peTifioner was appointed as_ Assismrrr Teacher, wherein, i'f was provided 'H'mf 'Hne pe+i+ionar= would be gmrrfed pay scaia of Rs. 1200-40-1440-50-2040/-, af‘fer a period 0f Three years. I'!’ was fur‘l‘her provided *fha'? +he pe'H'Hcner would be em‘iiled +0 +he fixed pay of Rs. 500/— for a period of ihree years. 2. Similarly sifua'fed empioyees had approached 1+ie Madhya Pradesh S'm‘fe Adminisfra‘i’ive Tribunal. The Tribunal passed 'lhe order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukanf Yadu and 56 oihers Vs. 5+ale of MP. & ofhers.) 3‘ I'l' Was fur'lher held 'Hnaf ihe said benefif would be given fa all feachers and +hey should no’r be compelled +0 approach +he Tribunal for similar benefi‘i individually or collecfively‘ %x Sd/— 4. Being aggrieved, fhe fhen Sfn‘l'e of Madhya Pradesh had fiied The Special Leave Pe‘l’i'l'ion (Civil) N0. 6892/93 impugning fhe order da‘fed 24.8.1992 passed by 'I’hz Madhya Pradesh 5+a1’e Adminisfm+ive Tribunal, Jabulpur in O.A. No‘ 2745/89. The Hon'bie Supreme Cour? affer hearing learned couneel for The parlies, dismissed The Special Leave PeTiTion and having regard To The large financial implicaTions, granTed one year's Time To se'l'Tle 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 24.8.1992 passed by The Tribunal in 0A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable To The peTiTioners being similarly siTuaTed and They are accordingly enTiTled To The same benefit . For The above sTaTed reasons, The peTiTioner is granTed liberTy To make a represenTaTion To consider The case of The peTiTioner if iT LsTands on The same fooTings as per order daTed 24.8.1992 by The Madhya Pradesh STaTe AdminisTraTive Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (MadhukanT Yadu and 56 oThers Vs‘ 5TaTe of MP. 8i oThers.) and subsequenTly confirmed by order daTed 3.1.1994 passed by The Hon'ble Supreme CourT in Special Leave PeTiTion (Civil) No. 6892/93 and granT relief accordingly. 6. The wriT peTiTion is accordingly disposed of. No order as To cosTs. l l l Satish K.Agnihotri i j Judge p