J 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition g§z No. 1314 of2008 ikR Narendra Kumar Kaser S/o Shn Puneehwar Kaser aged about 58 years Assnstant Teacher Government Middle School Chhote Pander Muda Block Khama, Dlstnct ‘ i Raigarh (CG). i i VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhamsgm‘h Through Seemtary School Educanon Department DKS Bha an, Rmpur (CG) 4K o i 2. The Assmant Comrmssxoner Tubal & Welfare Department 3 Block Educatlon Omcer Kharsla, Dlstnct Rmgarh (OG) (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CON‘H'ITUTION OF INDIA) {SB Hon'bleMr Satish K.Agnihoiri J.) Present :i Rmgarh (CG) l—; go Slm Aml Mourym Advocate for the petmoner Shn Alok Bakhshl, Govt Advocate for the Stab/respondents l ORAL ORDER _ (Passed on 29m of Fehruary’, 2008) The petitioner was initially appomted as Assrstant Teamer on fixed pay of Rs 100/- Atter completion of nrobatmn the petitioner was genteel regular pay scale SJmlarly Situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradxh State Admmistrative Tribunal Jabalpur The Tribunal passed the order on 24 08 1992 1n O A No 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs State of M.Pl & Others.) It was further held that the said beneiit would be given to all the teachers artd they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar betieflt individually or collectively. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had tiled the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892793 impugning the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Admjliistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OIA. No. 2745/89i The Hoh‘ble Supreme Court atter hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial implications, granted one year's time to settle the ciaim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was.tiuther observed that the intervention would work out their tights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 PETITIONER ‘ I ’ i513 I ¢ i 1 \ passe by the Tnbunal 1n OA No 2745/1989 1s apphcable to the petitioners bemg sumlarly smtated and they are amordmgly enmled to the same benefit I Learned counsel appeanng for the pentmner «ubrmts that tins Court whlle congldenng the same Issue In Ram Kumar Sahu and others VS Sifate Govt of Chhamsgarh and another 1n Wm Pemmn (S) No 81? of 2007 by order dated 12 02 7007 hzw granted regular pay scale w e f the date ofmma! appomtment i‘ 6. Learned counsel appearmg fer the parties Jomtly subrmt that this case 1s; squarely covered by the decmlon ofthls Comt In the case ofRam Kumar Sahu and others Vs State Govt of Chhatnsgarh and another (Supra) However the state 1s at llbetty to venfy the facts of appomtment asto whether the ease of the petlttoner ls sumlar to that of the order dated 12 02 2007 passed by tlus coun m w P (S) No 8n of2007 (Supra) In mew ofthat this petttlon 1s allowed m the same terms 1 e pettttoner 1s entitled to the same rehef as was granted by the Madhva Ptadesh State Admlmstrahve Tnhunal Jahalpur 41 OA No 274V89 (Madhukant Yadu and *6 others Vs State of M P & others) and subsequently confirmed by order dated 01 01 94 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court m Spectal Leave Petttton (Coal) No 6892/93 The petttloner shall be governed by the orders passed by the Tnbunal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) accordmgly, subJect to venfwattou of te ct No orr ast st ' Sd/'- ' ’ a: Satish KAgnihm—m“ udge, , it j i ’ J . . Lwgk H d h fas de o eos