^.0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS w WritPetf<IonrS)No.394of2(X)8 1. Sur Singb Rathore, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Fattelal Rafliore, Assistaiit Teacher Govemment Primary School, Kotkharra, Block Marwalii, District Bilaspur (GG). 2. Ra^iunath Sin^i Matko, S/o Shri Dula Sai Mafko, aged about 38 years, Assistant Teaeher Govemment Primary School, ThihaitQla, Block Marwahi, District BUaspur (CG). 3. Kushal Singh Kaushlesh, aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Buddhu Stngli, Assistant Teacher Govermnent Prunary School, Dongratola (Usadh), Block Marwahi, District BiIaspur(CG). 4. Vikram Sing^i Marabi, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri SundarSmghMarabi,AssistantTeaGherPrimarySchool, Majhetola (Ban'asan), Block Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG). VER8US > 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i tiie Secretary, School Education'Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director, public InstniGtion Department Raipur(CG). 3. District Education Qfficer, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4. Block EducationOfficer, Marvalii, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Satish K. Aanfliotri. J.) Preseiit : Shri Dhu'endra Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri AlokBakhahi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 19th ofFebruary, 2008) 1. The petitioners were initially appomted on 04.08.93 asAssistairt Teaehers on fixed pay of Rs. 500/-. After completion ofprobatioa, the petitioners were graiited regilar payscale. 2. Sumlarly situated enyloyees had approafihed the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal passed tfae order on 24.08.1992 in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State ofM.P. & Others.). 3. It was further held that the said benefit would be given to all tfae teachers and tfaey should not be compelled to approach the Tnbunal for similar benefitindividuallyQrcollectively. \ 4. Beingaggrieved,tfaethenStateofMadhyaPradeshhadfiledtheSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 unpugning tfae order (jated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Adnunistrative Trihunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hohlle Supreme Court after hea|rmg L. counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition aiid having regard to the large financial implicafions, granted one year's time to settle the claiiti for fhe arrears without interest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was farther observed that tfae intervention would work out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the petitioners being similarly situated and •they are accordingly entitled to vf tfae same benefit. Leamed counsel appearir®for the petitioners submits that this Court while considering thesame issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and otfaers Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarii and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.3007, has graiited regular pay scale w.e.f. the date ofimtial appointment. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties joiAtly siibniit that this case is squarely covered bythe decision ofthis 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 thefacts of appointment asto whether the case oftfae petitioners are sumlar to that ofthe order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 813 of2007 (Supra). In view ofthat this petition is allowed in the same tenns i.e. petitioners are entitled to the same relief as was granted by tfae Madhya Pradesh State Adimnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadii aiid 56 others Vs. State of M.P.& others) and subsequently confinned by order dated 03.01.94 passed by the Hon1?le Supreme Court in Special Leavs Petition (Cml) No. 6892TO. The petitioners shall be govemed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Honlle Supreme Court (supra) accordingly. Sd/- SatistaK.Agnihotril Judge Sahn