qD HISrH wURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BHJASPUR Writ. Petitimi (S) Naaizéz of 2363 PETHIQQQEEES : 1. Umendra La! Dong-(11¢ aga abaut SO years, UDT Sfo Slari Laxman Singh Dongre, Govt. Hr. Scc. $011001 Ghotiya Block Dmmdi, DiStt. Durg {CG} 2. Shiv Dayal Sinha, age about 52 yaars, Amt. Teacher, S/o Late Shii Duklmvaram Singh Govt. Girlg Primary 8011001 Kande Biock Doundi, Disit. Durg (CG). 3. Khilzmand Hirwani agg abaut 52 years, Asstt. Teacher S/o Late Shri Shriram Hirwani Govt. Giris Primary School Markatola, Block Dmmdi, Distt. Burg {CG} 4. Phagnu Ram Salame Age abou‘i 59 ycaxs, Asstt. Teacher S/o Late Shri Dharam Singh Salame Govt. Boys Primary Schoel Bharritola Block Doundi, Distt Durg (CG). Kn. Chitrakala Thakur (Now Sim. Diwan) age abaut 51 wars, H¢ad Master W/o Shri ML. Diwan Govt. Boys Primary School Gudum Block DoundL Distt. Durg (CG). Smt. Puma Devi Mandavi Age about 52 years, Head Master W/o Shri Haasa Ram Mandavi Govt. Primary School ?a11de1 Block Doundi, Distt. Durg (CG). 7. Bhewan Lal Sahu, Age about 51 yeaxS, Asstt. Teacher Sio Shl'i Hirde Ram Sahu, Govt. him-dry School Vanpandel Block Doundi, Disti. Burg (CG). 8. Jagdis‘n Prasac‘l Sones‘nwar age about 51 years, Asstt. Teacher Sfo Shri Balduram Sooeghwar Govt. Primary Schooi Odegoan No. 1. Biock Doundi L‘tistt. Durg (CG). 9. Ram Dayal Timhlr. Age about 5’? years, Head Master S/o Dhri Daghru Ram Thakur Govt Middle School Hana Thoma Block Bound: Distt Durg WP) 10 Ram Das Nuruu, Age about 50 veam, dead Master S/o Sim Parsdd1 Ram Nu 1m Govt Middle School Badbhum Bloek Gurur. Dlstt. Durg (CF). u! Ow VERSUS FFQPGNDFNTS State of Chhartisgarlg through Seeretary Tribal Welfare apartment & Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Ass’u". Commissioner, District Durg (CG). District Education Oflicer, Durg. Block Education OEicer Gurur/Doundi/Balod. Treasury, Aeoouhts & Eensiori. Digtrie‘t Burg (CG). {WRIT PETTTION KMER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CGNSTYTI lTlON OF lNDlA) ($3: Hon‘hle Mr. Sam}: K. Agrrihotri J.) Freeent : Qhn Qomkanf Velma Ad ocate for fhe pehtlonere Smt. Smlta Ghal, Panel Lawyer forihe State AJN‘'JIJ p ORAL GREER {Passed 0n 26E; 0f Fehrimry, 2%8) The petitiomrs warg mitially appointgd as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 10W: Afier completian of probation; ths peiitioners were granted regular pay scabs. Similarly situated employees had approachad thg Madhya Pradash tate Admi11istrative Tn'btmai, Jabalpur. Thg Tribunal passed. the order on 24.08.1992 Ln 0A. N0. 274§/89’ (Madhukant Yaclu and: 56 otharS Vs. Sta’m of MP. «EL Otlmrs.) It wag further held that the said bmelll would bg given i0 all the TSaGhsrs and they shauld 110i be compelled ta approach the Tribunal far similar benaiit individually or mlledivgly. Beihg aggriemad, thg then State of Madliya Pradesh had. filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93 impugling the arder dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. N0. 2745i89. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial impiieatiens, granted one year's time t0 settle the elaiin fer the arrears Without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It Wis nether observed that the interventien weuld werk out their rights in aceerdanee with lawi This ercler dated 24.68.1992x') nassed by the Tribunal in 0A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are eeeordhigly entitled to the same benefit. Learned counsel appearing ior the petitioners submits that this Court wliile considering the same issue in Rain Khmer Sehu and others Vs, State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2Q0‘7 by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regular pay scale wef. the date of initial appointment. Learned counsel apnearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kuniar Sahu and. others Vs. State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another (Supra). However, the state is at liberty to verity the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners are sit--ilar to that of the order dated 12.02.2037 passed by this court in WP, (S) No. 813 £2097 (Snpra). / a“. 1 »/V d v(, . S 5 p 111 view ofthat this petitien iS aliawed in the 331m fermg Le. petitianers a“. elifitkd 10 the sama relief a3 was granfad by the Madhya Pradesh State, Admim$trative Tribunal, Jabalpur in. 0A. N0. 2745/89 (Madimkani Yak; and 56 ofhers Vs. State. of MVP. & others) a11d subsgquemly sailfinned by order dated 9301.94 passed by the Hon'ble Suprema. Court in Special Lsave Petition (Civil) No‘ 6892/93. Tha petiiioners shall be gmlemed by tlm arduzrs passed by the Tribunai as well as by the Hon'hie Supreme Court (supra) accordingly. No order asto casts. \ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge