IN THE HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT RILASM TR G-‘w‘gq WRIT PETITION N0. / QOOé WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3AA Pstitionsr Djh'p Smgh Thakur/ S/o Sita Ram Singh Thakur, Agéd about 43 years, Asst. Tsachsr, Primary School, Majnpuri, Block—Kawardha District — Wesemawhv A 7‘ Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus Respondsnts ,L r Stateraf Chhattisgarh / Through : Secretauy School EducatiO‘rl Dewar-fluent, r D;K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Ofiicsr , Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Block Education OEccr /’ Block — Kawardha, District — Kabirdham (C.Cv.)1 Singh Bemh: Hon‘ble Mr. Jus'rice Sofish K. Anihofri‘ g Pe‘ri'fioner : Dilip Singh Thnkur Versus Respondenfs : 5mm of Chha‘ffisgar-h 6; ofhers Present Mr. Deepak Jain, dvocafe for fhe pfifioner. A e r Ms. Sunifa Jain, Panel lawyer fo +he respondems/Sfafe. ‘ (Passed on 13”“ day of December, 2006) 1. The pe1'i1’ioner was appoin'fed as Assisfanf Teacher, werei, i1' r hn was provided fhaf The pe'ri'fioner weuid be gmn-fedpay scale of Rs. 9754000604210-40-1450—50-1650/—, affer a period of 52 one year. I'l’ was fur'rher provided ‘fhu‘i 1+le petti'iioner would be enfii'ied 1’0 The fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year. 2. Simiiariy sima‘i'ed empioyees had approached fhe Madhya Pradesh Siaie Adminisfrai'ive Tribunal. The Tribunal passed 1'he order on 24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukan'l’ Yadu and 56 o'rhers Vs. Sfafe of MP. & ofhers.) 3. Ii was fur'rher held 'ai' 'rhe said benefif would be given +0 all lh feachers and 'l'hey should noi be compelled ‘io approach +he Tribunal for similar befif individually or colleciively. A‘ ‘ai! i l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 6789 of 2006 ORDER ne 4. Being aggrieved, +he Then STaTe of Madhya Pradesh had filed The i Special Leave PeTiTion (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning The order da+ed 24.8.1992 passed by 1412 Madhya Pradesh 5mm Adminisfm'rive Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court «Her hearing learned counsel for 'I’he parfies, dismissed fhe Special Leave Pefi'rion and having regard 1'0 1l1e large financial implica‘fions, gran'l'ed one year's Time 1'0 se'l'ifle ‘lhe claim for The arrears wi'l'hou’r inferes'l vide order dafed 3.1.1994. If was fur'lher observed 'I'ha'l' fhe, inferven'l'ion would work ou'l' 1’heir rigln‘s in accordance wi'rh law. This order dafed 24.8.1992 passed by fhe Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the pefifioners being similarly si'rua'red and +hey are accordingly enfiiled 'i'o 'l'he same benefit . For The above sTaTed reasons, The peTiTioner is granTed liberTy To make a represenTaTion To consider The case of The peTiTioner if iT V s-rands on 1he same foo'iings as per order daied 24.8.1992 by 'ihe Madhya Pradesh Sia‘l'e Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukani' Yadu and 56 oi'hers Vs. 51‘a1’e of MP; & oi'hers.) and subsequen'l'ly confirmed by order dafed 3.1.1994 passed by The Hon'ble Supreme Cour-r in Special Leave Pe'l’i'l’ion (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gran'i’ relief accordingly. 6. The wriT peTiTion is accordingly disposed of. No order as To cosTs. a Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri j Judge dc: