@ IGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR ‘Wlit I’etition g8) N0. 832 0f2G68 PETETIGNERS l_‘. RFSpGNDENTS Tearath Prasad Gupta S/o Slm' Sasslli Prasad Gupta, age about 35 yaars, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Ralijaki, Block Gourela, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Ku. Ragim' Paramjeet D/o Shri Ishacharan Age about 40 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt, Primary, School, Ghurdevapara, Block Marvahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Education & Tribal Depanment, DKS Bhavzm, Raipur (CG). go District Education Officer. Disti. Bilaspur (CG). Block Edueatioii Officer, Block Marvahi/Gourela (CG). {WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION'OF INDIA) :(SB: H£g’ble Rm/I‘riSatish K. Amgaihoggggg 9’ N. Present : Shri Ajay Shrivastava. Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Binu Shanna, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on s'h of Februmy, zoos) i-a The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 500/-. Alter completion of probation, the petitioners Were granted regular pay scale. Similarly situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.08.1992 iii 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukaiit Yadu and 56 others Vs. State ofMP. £3; Otlierg.) It was hmher held that the said benefit would be given to all the teachers and they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar beliefxt individually or collectively. 4. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had tiled the Special (Civil) No. 6892/93 inipugiing the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, go Ld‘' > Leave Petition. l. B w Jabalpur in OA No. 2745/89. Thg Hon'ble Suprems Court afiér hearing counsel for the parties; dismissed tha Special Leave Petition. and having -agard to the large financial hnplioations, gamed me year's time. to same the claim for tbs airears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. If was further obsgrvei‘; that the. intgrvention would. work. cut iheir rights in accordaiice with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O‘A. N6. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and. they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. Learned eclipse! appearing for the petitioners submits that this Couit while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Salim and others Vs. State Govt. of Clihattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regelar pay scale wef. the date ofim'tial appo'mtizient. Learned eem‘sel appearing for the parties johitly submit that this case is squarely eovered by the decision of this Conrt in the ease of Ran: Kumgr Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (Supra). However, the state is at libeity to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the ease of the petitioners are similar to that of the order dated 12.02.20t37 passed by this court in WP. (S) No. 813 of2067 (Supra). In View ofthat this petition is allowed iii the same terms i.e. petitioners are entitled tbr regular pay scale with effect front the date of initial appointment, subjeot to verifieatioh ofthe fiaets. No order asto costs. 4 Salm Sd/— u i Satish K. Agnihotrl ‘ Judge A