RgsgeNDgNTS“ E’reSe11t : 93 Teacher, S/o Shri Block Magarload, : i, ‘Chandali Singh Champeshwar Bisha Distt. Aged about 47 I Ram GQVI. yaars, Asstt. Pn'mary School Ladsr, leans , Asstt. Teacher, HIGH COURT Writ OF Petition CHHATTISGARH {SQ No. 1243 of2$68 AT BILASPUR l’FTETEONERS Dhamtari (CG). Z. Govirdhan Singh Patel age about 5O ‘S/o Shri Padam La! Pam: Govt Primary School Devgaon Biock Magrioad, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 3‘ Mohan La! Sahu, aged Shri Ghasi Ram Sahu, Block: Magarloagg DiSti. 4. Pawan Kumar about Gmri, Primary Schm)! Dhamtari (CG). Ram Sahu, Sahu agc Govt about Boys 45 years, Primary Assit. School Teacher Jhiriya S/o 8/0 Shn’ Lakhan La] Shanna, about Govt 54 Primary years, Assit. School Teaohor, Pcndri, Block Dhamfari, Dist?“ Dhamiari (CG). 5. Golml Pmsacl Shamia, age Block Bemetara; Disti; Burg (CG). VERSUS of Chhaitisgarh, 1—... Stato Dopallmcnt and Education Raipur (CG). GRAL ORDER {Fassed on 26 ofFebmmy, 2W) The petitiomrs were initially appointed pay of Rs. 4000/— & 1200/-. After petitionors were granted regular pay seal Adminislrative Tn‘bunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal . ri. u 2. District Education Officor, Dhamtari/Bcmetara Smt. Slm' Soml:ani Smita Ghai‘, Vonnal Fanel Advocale Lawyer for for the tho State. petitionem. 6. as Ajgsistant Teachers on llxed completion of probation, the Similarly situaiad employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State in (1A No. 2745/89 (Madhukaht Yadu and 56 others Vs. beoefit would be given to all the teaohers 24.08. 19.92 State ofM.P. 8a Others.) Ii was further held that the said and they shoald not be oompelled fro anproaoh the Trib benefit indivirluahy or collectively. Leave Petition (Civil) Nd 6892/93 24 passed the order on I. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya PradeSh had filed rhe Special .G8.l992 passod by tho Madhya Pradesh Admlolotralive TribunaL impugzihg rho order dated through Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, (WRIT PETTYION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Salish K. A. liliot . unal l m 6? )F. p Jabalpur in 0A. No. 21'45i’89. The Hm'ble Supreme. Court aiiar haaring counsel far the pariies, dismissed the Syacial Leave Patition and having regard to tha large fhmncial Lmpliaatians, granted 011$ year’s time to settle the claim for thg arrears without interest vide order dated 03‘01‘1994. It was further Observed that the intervemion would work out thair rights in aceordaaca with law. This order datad 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA N0. 2745/1989 is appiigabis to the petitimier§ “wing similarly situated and they are accordhigly aiititled i0 the same beiigfit. Leamed counsel appealing for the petitiaiiars submits that this Court while. congiderihg the samo issuo in Rain Kumar Salim mid others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh a116, aiiother iii Writ l’etition (S) No. 813 of 2007. by ordar dated 12.()2.2QG7, has granted reguiai‘ pay scale: w.e.f. tho date of iiiitial aphointment. Leamod oouhssl appearing for the partias jointly submit that this cage is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court. i1: the case of Ram Kumar Sahi} and others Vs. Stats Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (Supra). Howovar, the state is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners are similar to that of the order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in WP, (S) No. 813 of 2007 (Supra). hr View of that this petition is allowed iri the seine terms i.e. petitioners (V, are entitled to the same relief as was gamed by the Madhya Pradesh’ State Administrative Tribunal? Jahalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhnkent Yadu and $6 others Vs. State of MP. & others) and subsequently continued by order dated {33.01.94 passed by the Hon’hle Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition-(Civil) No 6892/93. The petitioners shall he governed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Elon’hle Supreme Court (supra) accordingly. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge :4. J.’ , r. Wt J J