(^. ^i]t»y,y u f!v'^- •^•^,ifS^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl N0. &S12-/2006 PETITIONER *< •'^. .</'.•• ^.f\^-', A-- *"' Kashi Prasad Pandey, Son of Shri Omkar Prasad Pandey, Aged about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, .£> y £y~'-v, ^•••' ^•'"^•..••^.S^ Govemment Priniaiy School, Kuthur, Block Nawagarh, Distt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) .<? .^•'^>i;' ^- •W"^ i.'tS*''' ^••''' ri^ •^' VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^' ^^yS'- ^t>- o^ ^^Si^ 'v«ss!ie-s^- , State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Department of Education, Manta-alaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director of Public Instruction, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Distict Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 4. The Block Education Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Chanipa (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 j ^.i K •'.' » '£:-. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6XRH AT BILASPUft Single Beneh: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. W. P. (5) No. 6867 of 2006 Peti+ioner : Shudiil Kumar Pandey Versus Respondents : State of Chhatt'isgar+i & others W. P. (S) No. 6871 of Z006 Petitioner : Fuljentius Kujur Versus Respondents State of Chhatt-isgarh & others Md W. P. fS) No. 6872 of 2006 Petitioner ; Kashi PrasadPandey Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarft & o+hers p Present; Mr. Ashwini Shukta, Advoco.ie for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. ORDER >th (Possed on l2Tn day of Oecember, 2006) 1. The petitioners were oppointed as Assistont Teacher, whersin, it was provided that the petitioners would be gronted pay scale of Rs. 545-925/-, after a period of one year. It was further provided that the petitioners would be entitled to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. ''& 2. Writ Petition (5) No.s 6867/2006, 6871/2006, cmd 6872/2006 are be.mg disposed of by this common order as the facts and question of law involved in ^hese petitions are common. 3. Similarly situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administnitive Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. A others.) 4. It was ftjrther held that the said benefit would be given to all teachers <md -they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collectively. 5. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Speciat Leave Petition (Civil)No. 6892/93 impugning the order ckited 24.8.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh 5-tate Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court- after hearing leamed counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and hcwing regard to the large financial imptications, granted one year's time to ^ttle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was fur-ther observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA. No. 2745/1989 is cpplicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingfy entitled to +he same benefit. ^^ s 6. For the above stated reasons, the petitioners are gronted liberty to make a representation to consider the cases of the petitioners if it stand on the same footing as per order dated 24.8.1992 by tiie Madhya Prudedi State Administrative Tribunat, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukcuit Yadu ond 56 others Vs. Sta-te of M.P. & others.) and sub^quently cwifirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 pasaed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court- in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingly. 7. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.No order as to costs. Sd/- Satfsh K.Agnihotri Judge Bablu •^'