HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPITR Writ Petition fS) No, 1315of20(» PETITIQNER : Bhanu Prakash Patel, S/o Shri Banmali Prasad Patel, aged about 53 years, Assistant Teacher, Goveniment Primary School, Damtmuda, Block Khareia, District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Seoretary, School Education Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The -Assistant Conmiission®-Tribal & Wetfare Department Raigarh (CG). 3. Block Education Qfficer Kharaia, Distriot Raigarfi (CG). (WRrr pETmoN TJNDER ARTICI.E 226/227 OF THE coNSTmmoN OF TNDIA) fSl.B: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present Shri Anil Mourya, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. QRALORDER >Bi 2. 3. 4. (Passed on 2SU1 ofFebiiiaiy, 2008) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay ofRs. 100/-. Afier completion ofprobation, the petitioner was granted regiilar pay scale. Similarly sitoated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State AdnMnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpjr. The Tribunal passed the order on 24.08.1992 in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhiikaat YaAi and 56 others Vs. State ofM.P- & Others.). R was fartfaer held that the said benefit would be pven to all the teachers and they shoiild not be compelled to approach the Tribunal for similar benefit indiwAially or collectively. Being a^ieved, the tiien State ofMadhya Pradesh had filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impiigning the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya ftadegh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Sup-eme Court after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial nnplications, g-anted one year's time to settle the claim for the arrears withoirt itrtere'?t vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was fiirther observed that the intervetition would work out their rights in accordance with !aw. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribimal in O.A- No. 2745/1989 is applicable to the netitioners being similarly sitiiated acd they are accordiiigty entitied to the same benefit. Leamed counsd appearing for the petftioner siibmits that this Coiirt while eonsidering the same issiie in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs- State Govt- ofChhattisgarh a&d another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.2007, has yanted regiilarpay scale w.e.f. the date ofinitial appomtment. ,.. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jowtty siibmif that this case is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the case ofRam Kumar Sahii and othere Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarii and another (Supra). However, the state is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the order dated 12.02.2007 passed bythis court in W.P. (S) No. 813 of2007 (Supra) In view oftfaat this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner is entitled to the same relief as was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Admmistrativc' Tribunal, Jabalptir in O.A- No. 2745/89 (Madhukatit YaAi aiid 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others) and subgeqnently confirmed by order dated 03.01.94 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The petitioner shal! be yivemed by the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the HonWe Siipreme Cw.wt (siipra) accordingly, subject to verification of the facts. No order Mto costs. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotri Judge Sahn