> \ ——-—______________ HIGH 1 COURT Wm OF Pemno CHHATTISGARH o. 994 ofzobs A BILAsPUR _ . - . : § PETITIONER : Nem Smgh Sahu S/o Shn M01 Ram Sahu aged about § 41 years Asstt Tsacher ovt Pnmaty School ‘ Nawagaon, Berla, Dlstt Durg (0G) _ g VERSUS ‘ ' i w 3 RESPONDEN 1 S , : 1 State ofChhamsgarh, Thro ghSecretary, Education ' » ,- ! V I & Tubal Depamnent DKS Bhavan Rmpur (CG) 2 Dlstuct Educanon Otfkmr ljlsu Bemetara (CG) g (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE CONsmUHON OF INDIA) I LB Hon'hIeMr SansnKAgnuhAJ) ; Present : Shn Somkant Velma, Advocate for the petmoner ' Shn Saush Gupta, Govt Advocate for th6 State/respondents g ................................................................................................. ‘ , ‘ - . :I ORAL ORDER - ~ " 1 ~‘ (Passed on 18m of February, 2008) ' - 1. The ‘petmoner was appomted lmtlally on 1801 1993 as Assxstant ' Teacher on fixed pay of Rs 500/- Aiisr completlon of probatlon, the ’ petmoner was granted regu1ar pay scale 2. Smnlarly Sltuated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State : z‘ Admlmstrative Tnbunal Jabalpur The Tnbunal passed the order on 24 08 1992 m 0A. No 2745/89 (Madhukant Yaw and 56 others Vs State ofM.P. & Others). L 3. It was iiuther held that the said benefit would be gtven to all the teachers and they should not he compelled to approach the Tnbunal for smular ‘ _ benefit 1nd1v1dually or collectively. I I 4. Being agg‘ieved, the then State of Madhya Piadesh had tiled the Special ' Leave Petition (Civil) No. - 6892/93 impugting the order dated 24.08. 1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh. Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur 1n O A. No 2745/89 The Hon'ble Supreme Court atter hearmg - I: ‘ l counsel for the partles dismissed the Specral Leave Petitlon and havrng _ regard to the large financial imphcations, granted one years tlme to > settle the pcla'in'i for the arrears without interest vide order dated n N ' g ‘ ‘ . ‘ 03.01.1994; It was timber observed that the“ intervention would work but their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OAA No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the botitioners beingsimilarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. I y 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitio er 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 ’ 2907 by order dated 12.02.2007, has gamed regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. . Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision ofthis 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 petitioners are similar to that ofthe order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 813 of 2007 (Supra). In View ofthat thispetition is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner is entitled for regular pay scale with eEect hem the date of initial appointment, subject to veritication ofthe facts. No order asto costs. r r sw— ‘ Satish K. Agnihmn ‘Judge