^ HIGH COTJRT OF C'HHATTISGARH AT BILA8PTJR WntPemon(S)No,1316^i"20 S PETITIONER • Pareshwar Das Vaishnav, S/o Shri Adhindas Vaishnav, aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Hi^i School, Telilkot, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS .RESPQNDENT8 : 1. State of Chhattiggarh Throiigh Seeretary, School Education Department DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (CG). 2. The Assistant Comimssioner Jriba! & Welfare Department Raigarh(CG). 3. Block Educatiem Offieer Khaisia, District Raigarh (CG). (WRTT PETmON TJNDF.R ARTrCI.E 226/227 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDTA) f8B: Hon'Me Mr. Sa<ish K. AeBihotri. J.) Present 1. Shri Atiil Mouiya, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, GCM.. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER «Bi (Passed on 29°'ofFebi-uary, 2008) The petitioner was uutiaUy appointed as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay ofRs. 150/-. After completion ofprobation, the petitioner was granted regiilar pay scale. Similarly sitaated employees had approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir. The Tribi)nal pa^sed the order on 24.08.1992 in O.A_ No. 2745/89 (Madhnkant YaAi and 56 otfaeis Vg. State ofM.P. & Others.). It was farther held that the said benefit would be given to all the teachers and they should not be compe'led to approach the Tribuna! for similar benefit individually or collectively. Being aggrieved, the then State ofMadhya Pradesh had filed tfae Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning the order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribiuial, Jabalpur m O.A. No. 2745/89. The Hon'ble Supreme Coiirt after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to the large financial inqdications, granted one year's time to settle the claim for the arrears without mteregt vide order dated 03.01.1994. It was fiirther observed that the initervention woiild woric Qut their rights in accordance with law. This order dated 24-08.1992 passed by the Tribunal in O.A- No- 2745/1989 is applicable to the Q> Saha petitionets being similarly sitiiated and they are accordingly entitled to the same benefit. L^amed counsel appearmg for the petitioner siibmits that this Court while considering the same issiie in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regiilarpay scale w.e.f. the dateofinitialappomtment. ^ Leamed counse! appearaig for the parties jointfy sutnnit that this case is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the fase ofRam Kumar Sahu and others Vg. State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another (Siipra). However, the state is at liberty to verify the faots of appointmetit asto whether the ca.se of the petitioner is similar to that of the order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 813 of2007 (Supra). In view ofthat this petition is allowed in the same tenns i.e. petitioner is entitled to the same relief as was granted by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpiu- in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant YaAi aad 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others) and subsequentty confirmed by order dated 03.01.94 passed by the HonWe Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Ciwl) No. 6892/93. The petitioner shall be govemed by the orders pa.ssed by the Tribuna! as wel! as by the Hon'bie Supreme Court (siipra) accordmgly, subject to verification of the facts. No order asto costs- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge