HaGa COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: EILASPUR Wfit Petition {g} No. 71 08 of 209? Petitioner Parmeshwar Swamakar, SIC). Shri Shyam Lai Swamakan aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher GGWL Mid$§e Sahaoi (Tswn), Champa, Biock Bamhamdih, Distt. Jam'gir Champa(CG). Véf'SUS Respondents 1) The State of Chnattisgarn‘ rhrough Secretary7 Schooi Education Department, ”KS, r1 I V‘k m ‘awan. 1') naipur //‘f\ we). ’2) The Director‘ Pubsic instruction Department, Raipur (CG), 3) District Education Officer, District Janjgir— Champa(CG}. 4) Stock Education Gfficer, Bicck Bamhanidih. District Jam'gil-Ghampa (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 225 0f the Constitution of India) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Snri KS Pawar, oeunsei tortne petitioner“ Shri Awind Dubey, Panel Lawyer forthe State QRAL OREER (?essed on 23*“. Januarygmg) The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed on 5-7-1980 as Assistant ”teacher on a fixed pay soaie of Rs.150f— on probation for a period of two years. After compietion of probation, the petitioner was granted reguiar pay soaie wet. 5-7- 1982. 2) Simiiariy situated empioyees had approached the Madnya Pradeeh State Administrative Tribunai. T‘ne Tribunai passed the order on 24—8-1 932 in O.A.No. 2745 of i989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. & others). 3) it was further neid that the said benetit wouid be given to aii teachers and they shouid not be compeiied to approach the Tribunai for simiiar benent individuaiiy or ooiiectiveiy. @ ‘V- 4) Being aggrieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had fiied the special Leave Petiticn (Civil) No. 6892/93 §mpugmng the order dated 24-8- 1992 passed bv the Madhva Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal] Jabaipur in DANO. 2745i89. The Hon’bie Supreme Court after hearing ieamed counsei for the paiiies, dismissed the Speciai Leave Petition and having regard to the iarge financiai impiications, granted one year‘s time to settietne oiaim for the arrears without interest vide order dated 3.1 .1994. it was further observed that the intervention wouid work out their rights in accordance with iaw. This order dated 24-8-1 992 paesed by the Tribunai in OANO. 2745f’i 989 is appiioabie to the petitioners being simiiariv situated and they are accordingiy entitied to the same benefit. 5) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court white considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. StS of 20C)? by order dated t2-2-2OG7, has granted regular pay soaie wet. the date ot initiai appointment. 6) Learned counsei appearing for the parties jointiy submit that this case is squareiv covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). However! the State is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners is simiiar to that of the order dated 12—2-2007 passed by this Court in W,P(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 7) in View of that this petition is aiiowed in the same terms. No Omer as to costs. Sdl— K. Agnihotri i Satish Judge Raju