Petitioners Respondente COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Wnt Petitjon (Sl No. 414 of2008 1) Dv^as Ram Sahu. S/o. Shri Pusau Ram Sahu, Age about 50 ysars, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. yiddle School, Bhatasorhi, Block Berla, Distt. Durg (CG). 2) Paitan Ram Sahu, S/o. Late Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Age about 47 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi, Ghotmarra, Block Beria, Distt. Durg. 3) Ku. Mriduia Gupta, D/o. Shri Mani Lal Gupta, Age about 48 years, AssSS. Teacher, Govt. Primary SchooS, Mauhabhata, BJOCK Saja, Distt, Durg (CG). Versus 1) Stat® Govt. of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education & TribaJ Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur 2) District Educatlon Officer, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG). (Writ Petition under Articis 225 of the Constltutjon of india) SB: Hon'bie MT. Satish K. Agnthotri, J. Present: Shri SomkantVerma, counseiforthe petltioners. Shri Satlsh Gupta, Depufy Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL (Passed on 22nd January, 20Q8) The petitloners were initlally appointed as Asslstant Teachers on a fixed pay scaie of Rs.1200/- on probation for a period of two years. After completion of probatlon, the petitloners ^vere granted regular pay scale. 2) Similariy situated empioyees had approached the IVIadhya Pradesh State Adminjstratlve Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 24-8-1992 in OA.No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others). -z- 3) It was further heid that the said benefit would be given to ali teacners and they shouid not be compeiled to approach the Tribunai for simiiar benefit individually or coliectiveiy. 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had flted the Specla! Leave Petition (Civii) No. 6892/93 impugnlng the order dated 24-8- 1992 passed bythe Madhya Pradesh State Adminlstrative Tribuna!, Jabaipur in O.A.No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing tearned oounsei for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the iarge financia! impllcations, granted ons year's time to settie the daim for tne arrears without Interest vlde order dated 3.1.1994. It was furtner observed that the intervention wouid work out thelr rights in accordance v/rth law. This order dated 24-8-1992 passed by the Tribunai in O.A.No. 2745/1989 is applicabie to the petitioners being similariy situated and they are accordingiy entitled to the same benefrt. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submlts that this Court whlle considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another In Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12-2-2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of jnitiai appointment. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court In the oase of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh and another (supra). However, the State is at iiberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners Is simiiar to that ofthe order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court In W.P(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). Rajy 7) In view of that this petition is aiiowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge