(rii R &Si y':-K ;-: ?S^^f:''H SiNlaLt Eaa-ni<n o -;.' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.GI W.P. fSl N0. C&82- /2006 PETITIONER ^.'^^ -.q--"%^¥-"" ....•-••" - ,wj'S!fi". l^:-^ ^^A^""' RESP^ONDENTS 1. r*0< <<??' (- ^•'^' ^' ., o^ .••^^^^ :-?''.A.I+A O-' ^y ^' Jag Prasad Verma Aged about 39 Years, S/o Shri Jailal Verma Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Pathratola, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Instruction Department Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE''»'»filfa^^^_ OF THE CONSTITUION O IL I N DIA ES' <;.-. ^ ME6H COURT OF CHHATTESfiARH AT BILASPUR Sirgte Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniholri. W. P. (5) No. 6882 of 2006 Petitioner : Jag Prasad Verma Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh A o't+iers W. P. (5)No. 6884 of 2006 Petitioner : BhiMiam Singh Sinha Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh A others W. P. (5) No. 6885 of 2006 Petitioner : Yogeshwar Pnsad Sanguly Versus Req)ondents : State of Chhatl'isgarh & others And W. P. (5) No. 6886 of 2006 Petitioner : Smt. Bed Bai Thakur Versus »- '•'^ Respondents State of Chhattisgarh A others Present: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sjnitoi Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. OR&ER (Passed on 12" day of December, 2006) 1. The petitioners were appointed as Assiston+ Teacher, wherem, it was provided that •Hie petitioners would be granted pcy scale of aa W9M ^A' Rs. 545-925/-, after a period of one year. It was further provided thart- the petitioners would be entitled to the fixed poy of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. 2. Writ Petition (S) No.s 6882/2006, 6884/2006, 6885/2006 and 6886/2006 are bemg disposed of by this common order os the facts and question of law involved in 1+iese petitions ore common. 3. Similtxrly situa-ted employees had cpproached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Mndhukont Yodu and 56 o-thers Vs. S+a-te of M.P. & o+hers.) 4. It was •farther held -that the said benefit would be 9iven to all teachers ond they should not be compelled to opproach the Tribunal for similar benefit indwiduafty or collectively. 5. Being aggrieved, 1tie then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civit) No. 6892/93 impugnmg the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State »•- Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court' after heoring leamed counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to •the large financiat implications, gronted one year's time to settle the ctaim for the arrears wi'thout interest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It wa? further observed that the intervention woutd work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is ^-^^^•^^^ ^ applicable to the petitioners being similarly si-hjated and they are accordingty entitled to -the same benefit. 6. For the ubove stated reasons, the petitioners are gronted liberty to moike a representation to consider the cases of -the petitioners if it stoind on -the same footing as per order dated 24.8.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunffll, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 o-thers Vs. S-tate of M.P. & others.) and subsequently confirmed by order dorted 3.1.1994 pcissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingty. 7. These writ petitions are accordingly di^)osed of. No order as to costs. B<blu Sd/- Satish KAgmhotti Judge ^ Es;S^^^J:^^