> «».:Mm\ Ww~ r, rm ‘1 ,7: . l-m” $§N§s§£ §EN€3H (LJC&2’0L (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5@I?I2006 PETITIONERS : / 1. Faiz Mohd. Mansuri,Age about41 years, S/o Shri Sekh Subrati, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Gumiyan, Block- Kartala, Distt.- Korba(C.G.) Gunbhushan Sahu, Age about 39 years, S/o Shripati Sahu, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Binara, Block — Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : z 1. State Government of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary, Tribal’Welfare Department & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Korba (C.G.) District Education Officer l.T.l., Korba (C.G.) Block Education Officer Tahsii - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) Joint Director (Funds / Accounts), Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C..) G 7% ‘ @ (3) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M HIGH<9URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (s) No. 58 17 of 2006 Petitioners : Faiz Mohd. Mansuri & anothsr Versus Respondents : State Government of Chhaftisgarh & others Siwe Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice with K. Apihotrl. \, Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the Pen'wncm. Shri Sumit Verma, Panel lawyer for the State] respondents. ORDER (27th acumen 2006) 1. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 7.3.1987 (Annexme P,’ 1) in the pay scale of Rs. 545 — 925. It is further submitted by leained counsel for the petitioners that for the mt one year the petitioners were paid only Rs. 300k p.111. though they were entitled to get monthly payment on the basis of regular pay scale during that period. learned counsel for the petitioners placed mliance on a decision at the Madhya Pradesh State Adminisnative Tribunal passed on 24.8. 1992 in O.A.No. 2745 of 89 ( Madhnkant Yadn and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. 65 others) and also on a decision passed on 18.2.2000 in O.A.No. 3006/ 1993 (Utam Kumar Banjari and others Vs. State of M.P. 85 others). In that case the petitioners were appointed on the post of Upper Divm'ion Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2640 vide order dated 29.3. 1992 but subsequently the Joint Director, Public instructions, Hoshangabad passed the order that instead of payment of salary in the regular scale of pay of 3 5 Rs. 1400-2640 the petitionets would be paid only consolidated nxed sum of Rs. 800/- for thme years and only aiier three yeaxs, they would be given salmy in the Iegular scale of pay. Learned Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Joint piteetor and directed the responden?{o make payment of salaly in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2640 along with all applicable allowances mm the date of appointmsnt of the petitionem. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the question of law and the facts involved in this petition are too similar to that of in the cases cited above. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes and agrees with the submission made by the peiitipners. For the above stated reasons the petitioners are granted four weeks n'me to make a representation before the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in the same terms as per the order dated 18.2.2000 passed in 0.A.No. 3006/ 1993 anti the order datcd 24.8.1992 passed in O.A.No. 2745/ 1989. In the event the petitioners stand on the same position, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief. For the reasons stated above, this petition is disposed of: Sdl- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i