HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘Writ Petition (S) No. 157 of 20118 Samay La! Kripal, Slo Shri Baijnath, aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Rajadih§ Block Mamahi, District Bilaspur (CG). t yETITmEmgs 2. Sundar Singh Lodha, S/o Shri Dashrath Singh Lodha, aged about 38 years, Assiant Teacher Government Boys Chhatrawas, Nimdha, Block Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). D)I Laxmi Prad Tiwari, S/o Shri Kashi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 41 years, Assistant Teacher Govemment Primary School Juanthal (Dhanpur), Block MarwahL District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Jagdish Prasa Khalkho, S/o Shri Bechan Singh, aged bout 42 years, Assistant Teacher Governent Primary d a m School Joda Talab (Lata), Block Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG) ~ 5. Ram Singh Wakare, S/o Shri Kishun La] Lakare, aged about 3S years, Assistt Teacher Government Primary School Khujjitola (Bisheshara), Block Pendra, District Bilaspur (CE). 6. Narayan Singh Paikra, S/o Shn' Tilasan Singh, aged about 4O years, Assistant Teher Goernment Primary School Pachasipara (Bamham'), Bloc Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG). 7. Satyanarayan Choudhary, S/o Shri Besahana Choudhary, aged out 39 years, Assistant Teacher ' Govermnent Primary School Girari (Majhepara), Block Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG). V 8. Karan Singh Shyam, SJo Roo S, aged about 43 years Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Chhichhnai, Block Gourela, District Bilaspur (CG). msmNamE . State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director Public Instruction Department, Raipur (CG). ' 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG) 4. Block Education Oiiicer Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG). 5. Block Education Officer, Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG). 6. Block Education Officer, Gourela, District Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. stream.) Present : Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. ’ Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. v/a4. st as an ac v k ab p ai , h VERSUS a ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10‘“ ofJanuary, 2008) The petitionem were appointed on 94.08.1993 as ASSistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 500/~. Aiier completion of probation, the petitioners were granted regular pay scale. Similarly situated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.08.1992 in 0A. No. 2745f89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs‘ State ofM.P. & Others). It was further held that the said benefit would be given to all the teachers and they should not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit individually or collectively Being agg‘ieved, the then State ofMadhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial irhplieatibns, gamed one year’s time to settle the claim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was thither observed that the intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in 0.1—1 No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court while considering the same issue in Rani Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of date ofinitiai appointment. Learned amuse! appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofRam 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 i whether the case ofthe petitioners are similar to that ofthe order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 8 13 of2007 (Supra). In View of that this petition is allowed in the same terms. No order asto costs. Sd/— . : Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge ~ w/v wse”