l H A A g IGH mlmT OF CHHATTIW T BILMPUR wm Pention (S) No. 1312 oizuos I V ‘ I PETITION R Raja Ram Dadsena, S/o Slm Hanchamn Dadsemg aged about 54 yeaxs Ass1stant Teacher, Government Pnmaly School Bakramuda, Block Kharsia, Distnct Ralgarh (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary School Education ‘ E Department DKS Bhawan, Ralpur (CG) 2. The Assistant Cormmssroner Tnbal & Welfare Department i ' Raigarh (CG) § 3_ Block Educatlon O$cer Kharsm DLStnct Ralgarh (CG) (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICI E 226/227 OF THF CONSTTIUTION OF INDIA) (93 Hon'me Mr SaushK Amhom,.1) Shn Ami Mourya Advocate for the petitioner l’resent :9 Shn Alok Bakhshl Govt Advocate for the Statelrespondents ORAL ORDFR ‘e (Passed on29m of Fehi'llary, 2008) The petitioner was mitlally appomted as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay of Rs 100/- AMr completlon of probanon, the petmoner was granted regular pay scale Sumlarly smmted employees had approached the Madhya Pradeeh State Adnumstmtwe Tnbunal Jabalpur The Tnbunal passed the order on 24 O8 1992 1n O A No 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs ‘ k StateofMP &Others) ‘3 It was thither held that the sand beneiit would be gwen to all the teacher; and they should not be compelled to approaeh the Tnblmal for smular beneiit 1nd1v1dually or collectively Being aggt‘ieved, the then State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93, ilnptlgting the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jahalpu‘r in O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon’ble Supreme Court alter hearing counsel for'the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large tinancial implications, gamed one- year's time] to settle the claim for the arrears Without iinterest vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was thither observed that the intervention would work, out their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in 0A. No, 2745/1989 is applicable to die 2% ' 1 \ i ‘ pentmnets bemg smularly sntuated arid they are accordmgly enmled to the same henef't ' Learned counsel appearmg for the penuoner submlts that this Court wl‘ule cons1der1ng the same Issue 1n Ram Kumat Sahu and others Vs State Govt of‘ Chhatnsgarh and another m Wm Petmon (S) No 813 of 2007 by order dated 12 02 2007 ha'z wanted regular pay scale w e f the ‘ dafe ofmmal appmmmem ' Learned counsel appeanng for the parties Jomtly subunt that tins case ls Qquarely covered hv the daemon of‘thw Court 1n the caee ofRam Kumar Sahu and other: Vs State Govt of (‘hhattlsgarh and another (Supra) However the state ls at hberty to venfy the facts of appomtment asto whether the case of the pentloner r: smular to that of the order dated 12 02 2007 passed by thls court 1n W P (S) No 813 of2007 (Supra) In wew ofthat tins peunon ts allowed m the same terms Le petmoner Is V entltled to the same rehef as was gamed by the Madhya Pradesh State Admnnstrattve Tnbunal Jabalpur 1n 0A. No 274V89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs State of MP & others) and subsequently conhrmed by order dated 0" 01 94 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court m Specral Leave Petrtlon (Fwd) No 6892/9? The petmoner shall be governed by the orderc passed by the Tribunal as weil as by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court (supra) accordingly, subjeot to venficatmn of the facts No order asto ot \ S Sd/- 7 ' '0 [ atish K.Agnihntri‘ a Jue. " _ K ' (dg ' ~ i css