W IN THE MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNA ' BENCH AT RAIPUR, CHHATTISFg‘ARH’Z. r”. 51‘ O.A. OF 200 l. Niranjay Kurhar Pandeya, Son ofDinesh Kumar Pandeya, aged about 30 years, working as Assistant Teacher at Govt. Girls Primary School, Semartal, District Bilaspur residing at Village Jalso, Semartal DistrictBilaspur. Sml. Rekha Pappula wife of Amrit Kumar Pappula, agéd 36 years working as Assistant Teacher, Primary school Kirtinagar, District Bilaspur resident of Raipur Naka, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur DistrictBilaspur. ’ 3. Sitaram Ayangar, Son of Mahabali Ayangar aged 34 years working as Assistant Teacher at Middle School, Selar District Bilaspur, resident of Village Dabhipara (Nagaoi) Post Baima Tahsil and District Bilaspur APPLICANTS :- IQ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ~— The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofSchoolEducatiom D,K.Bhawan, Raipur. Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Public Instructions School Education, Government ofChhattisgarh, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer, Government of Chhattisgarh, Opposite Collectorate Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Agglication under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. DETAILS OF APPLICATION L : V 7r am m mmgjMm/w m m Wmmw mm%%€rm %Wm SB : Hon’b!e Shri Manindra Mohan Shgivastava, J. 1$~£3-2913 Shri M. D‘ Dhote, counseHorthe petitioners. Shri 8atish Gupta, GA. forthe sate. Heard. The petitioners have med this pe ition claiming the similar beneiits as have been given to Asst. Teachers appointed in between the year 19834984 who had approached the Tribune! by tiiing Origin i Application No.2?45/1988 (decided an 24.8.1992), wherein Tribunal directed b efits to be given to all teachers. it is alse etated that the State challenged the said order before the Supreme Court in StL Nor6892l1993 which was dismissed vide order dated 3 1.1994. in number of caeee, this C urt has passed orders directing the respondents to consider the cases. Aocordingiyl this petition is also posed ofwith liberty to the petitioners to make representation, if so advised, to c nsider their oases on its own merits and perspective. if the petitioners stand on the s me footings as per order passed by the Madh‘ya Pi‘adesh State Administrative T ibunai in 0A. No.2745/89 (Madmrkam eds: rand at? where tr’s $gaie afM F ethers) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court I'i S.L.P. (CiVil) No.6892/93 by order dated 3.1.1994, appropriate order would be passed by th respondents authority. S l- dra Mohan Shrw \Judg astava e ’Mamn L §iNw¢r P d s