HEGH COURT 9F CHHATTISGARH AT BILA§P¥IR ‘Wi‘it Petitirm (S) f 0. 1239 of 2G08 PETITIONERS Jaipal Toppo, Age about 45 years, Amt. Teachsr, Si’o Shri ‘ Ratajl Toppo, Primary Schoo'l Chamilviilaira Block Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). h) Kaspar Barda Age about 53 yeats, A5311. Teacher Sfo Shri Rahail Bam, Primary Scheol Dipatoli Block Kunlmri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). 3. Duryodhan Yadav Age about 47 years, Asstt. Teaicher S/o Shri Demu Ram Yadav Pn'mmy School Khandand Block Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (CG). ' 4. Homlal Patel, Age about 45 years, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Mohan L211 Patel Primary School Klmrijhariya Block Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). VERSUS RF§P§NDENTS State of Chhattisgarlg through Secretary, Tn'bal Welfare Depaltmen't & Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur(CG). Block Education Ollioer, Kunkuri/Bagicha. Assistant Commissioner Distt. Jashpur (CG). Treasury, Account EL Pension Distt. Jashpur (CG). kLn- DUbJ (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: lioii'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present. : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Smite Ghai, Pane] Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDFR (Passed on Pom of lleiiguiriijr, 2%8) The getitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 150A A£er eompletioit of i robation, the petitioners were granted regular pay scale. Similarly situated employees had annroaehed the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.08.1992 in 0A. No. 2745i89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. & Others). 3. It was thither 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 individu ally or collectively. 4. Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 imnngning the order dated 24.03.1992. passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, )b .rr_ £75 u Jabalpur i1: OA N0. 2745/89. The Hon'bla Suprema Court aiier hearing amuse}. fbr the patties, disnL€SS3d the Special Leave Petition and havmg Iggard to the. iarge fmzmcial im§lisa€ims; grantad one year's tims to same thg glaim for the arream without interest vkie- arder datsd 03.01.1994. it was further obsewed that the imerve-ntion would work 0m thair rights in ascordancs with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2745f1989 is applicable to the petitimlers being similarly situated and they are agcordiiigly entitled to thg same bemiit. Learned counSel appearing for the petitioners Submits that this Court while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Salm and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.2007? has granted regular pay scale wef. the date of initial appoihtment. Lemred eourzsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this ease is squarely eovered by the decision of this Court iii the ease of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and mother (Supra). However, the state is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment. asto whether the ease of the petitioners are similar to that of the order dated 1102.200? passed by this court in W3 (S) N0. 813 or 2007 (Supra). In View of that this petition is alloweti in the same terms i.e. petitiohers are entitled to the same relief as was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, iabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 / (Madhuhant Yacht and 36 others Vs. State of MP. & others) and subsequently confirmed by order dated 03.01.94 passed by the Hoit’bie Supra ti. Court ih Special Leave Fetition (Civil) Nor 6892/93. The petitioners shall he governed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) accordingly. No order asto costs. Sci/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge U: }\ ,f J