SJNftj s B!e C > io' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.^87^ / 2006 PETITIONER \6 ^ -i^ ...^^p?"" ^t£> Rain Swaroop Rathore Son of Shri Chaitram. Rathore Aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Dhaneli, Block Nawagarh, Distt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS £P^ 6 ^ -^ ..<^%^ ^>^6VU o^ ;<^. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). Director of Public Instruction, Raipur (C.G.). The District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The Block Educadon Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Cham.pa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER_ _ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION_ OFJNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ^l f^-ty' '-"saas^" .liJ HI6H COURT OF MHArrLSGAW AT BILASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. W. P. (5) No. 6876 of 2006 Petitioner : Ram Swaroop Ra+hore Versus Re^ondents State of ChhattiS9arh & others Present; Mr. Ashwini Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. OR&ER •r t- >th 0'assed on l2Tn day of December, 2006) 1. The petitioner wns appointed as Assistant Teacher, wherein, it vws provided that the petitioner would be granted pay scale of Rs. 975-25-1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-1650/-, after a period of one year. It was further provided that the petitioner would be entitled to the fixed puy of Rs. 300/-for a period of one year. 2. Similarly situated employees had approached the Maidhya Praderfi State Administrative Tribunat. The Tribunaf passed the order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others.) 3. It was further held that the said benefit would be given to atl teachers and they should not be compelled to epproach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collectively. ,2 4. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Specnl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Macfhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The t-fon'ble Supreme Court after hearing leamed counsel for the parties, dtemissed +he Speciat Leave Petition and having regard to •the large fmancial implications, gnnted one year's time to ttle the claim for -t+ie arrears witiiout interest vide order dated 3.1.1994. It was 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 •rfie petitioners bein9 similarty situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. 5. For 'the above stated reasons, the petitioner is granted liberty to *s make a representation to consider the case of the petitioner if it stonds on the same footings as per order dated 24.8.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administnitive Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. A others.) ond subsequently confirmed by order dated 3.1.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl' in Spec'mi Leave Petjtion (Civil) No. 6892/93 ond grant relief accordingly. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge