HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition £31 No. 127 9f 2908 Petitioner m tn , ui Ashok Kuar Saami, S/o. Subedar Ram, Aged abcut 35 years R/o. in fiont of Jt Miii, Raigarh, Teh.& Distt. Raigarh' (CG). Versus 1) state of Chhattisgarh, through Secretar, Schoc! Eucaii Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Secretary, Scheduie Tri and Schedule Caste evelopment Department! D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG 3) Asst. Cammissioner, Trinai Deveiopment ‘ Dparent, Raigarh (CG). ' 4 District ducation Officer, Raigarh, Ditrict Raigarh (CG). 5) BiockEducation Officer, Raigarh, Distric Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition unde Article 226 of the Constitution of India) z' SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present $hri nay Kumar Pandey, ceunse fer the petitioer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Penei Lawyer for the State. ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9*“ January, $98} The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs:500l- on probation for a period of three years. After completion of probation, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale. 2) Similarty situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 24-8-1 992 in O.A.i\lo. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others). 3) lt was further held that the said benefit would be given to all teachers and they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar beneflt individually or collectively. ix Respondents y don be D ). etm ) E s t r : Vi ! n d \ C29 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the ‘ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 248-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabaipur in O.A.No. 2745/89. The Hon’bie Supreme Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large tinaneial implications, granted one year’s time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1.1.994. it was further observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24-8-1 992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12-2-2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). However, the State is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioner is simiiar to that of the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 7) In view of that this petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. M Sd/- . I Satish K. Agnihotri‘ i Judge Raju "iry, I /r )./45 d