HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WritPetitionCS) N0,535 qf2005 PETITIONER tt.'lilatas Ku. Sunita Rai, aged 23 years, D/o G.P. Rai, Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Higher Secondary School, Vishrampur, R/o Vishrampur, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Bastar. ^VERSUS 1. Goverament of Madhya Pradesh, through fhe Secretary, Tribal Harijan & Backward Classes RESPONDENT8 2. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri. J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Paiiel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORD£R (Passed on 9 day ofJuiy, 1. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 08.02.1990. The services ofthe petitioner alongwitb 16 other similariy situated Upper Division Teachers were terminated by order dated 26.12.1991 (Annexure A/7). Some of the Upper Division Teachers, whose services have been terminated by order dated 26,12.1991 have approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in various appUcations. All the applications along with O.A. No. 1592/1991 was allowed by order datedl3.Gl.1992. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents agrees with the facts as stated by leamed counsel for the petitioner. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that tfais matter may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.01.1992, passed by i,::S"*-ut-d^;' ^iiy .y <^-ft-^ ^^^i^^n^y Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 1592/1991. Tbe relevant portion ofthe order dated 13.01.1992 reads as follows: "6. The applications are allowed. The impugned order temiinating the services of the applicants are hereby quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate all the applicants and also pay them back wages. Nothing in fhis order shall preclude the respondents from resuming any fresh action with due advertence to the foregoing observation against the applicants. In case Ae respondents still feel that the applicants did not fulfill the essentia! qualifications/requirements, they can proceed to take action according to law after giving the applieants proper opportunity of subinitting their explanation. There shall be no order asto costs." 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to veritlcation of the facts. The impugned order terminating the services ofthe petitioner is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner has been working on the strength of the stay order granted by the Tribunal, there is no question ot payment of any back wages. The respondents are at liberty to take action in accordauee with law, after affording the petitioner proper opportunity of hearing. No order asto costs. Satiu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^