Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/6875/2006 of HARNARAYAN SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 12 December 2002
-1 , 1 i^ ^> v '-• ••' IN THE_HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^8 "Z -^2006 PETITIONER ^' .0°^ eb ^i^ ^.y' RESPONDENTS Harnarayan Sahu, Son of Shri Uinend Rain Sahu, Aged about 38 years, Assistant Teacher, Governnient Prrmary School,
^K't^^^
>, 1 v i^ '-• ••' ^
^
IN THE_HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^8 "Z -^2006
^'Harnarayan Sahu,Son of Shri Uinend Rain Sahu,Aged about 38 years,Assistant Teacher, PETITIONER
.0°^ eb eb
.0°^ eb eb^i^
Governnient Prrmary School,Markadih, Block Nawagarh,Distt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
^.y'
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS1.State of Chhattisgarh,...<-^^••"^SfThrough tfae Secretary,.*"•••<„..•••"""Departinent of Education,AV<J\:..-••^1-Mantralaya, D.K.S BhawanRaipur (C.G.).
- 2.3.
Director of Public Instruction,Raipur (C.G.).
The District Education Officer,District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
, 4.
The Block Education Ofiicer,BlockNawagarh,DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.).
/WRITL PETITIONUNDERARTICLE226OFTHECONSTITUTLQN: OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT INNATUREJ3FLMANDAMUS,^ERTIORARY OR ANY OTHERWRIT OF LIKE NATURE
W£^CajKTOFWHAmS6AWH/IT BILAyUR
Shigle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri.
W. P. (5) No.6868 of 2006PetitionerJayanti t>ubeyVersusRespondentsStirte of Chhattisgarh & o-thersW. P. fS) No. 6873 of 2006PetitionerAnita SinghVersusRespondentsState of Chhattisgarh & othersW.P. (5) No. 6874 of 2006PetitionerSohan Lat Ra'thoreVersusRespondentsSlate pf Chhattjsgarh A o-thersAndW. P. f5) No. 6875 of 2006PetitionerHarnarayan 5ahuVersusRespondentsState of Chhatl'isgarh A o+hers Present:Mr. ^shwini Shukta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State.
OR&ER(Passed on 12T">th doy of December, 2006)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioners were oppointed as Assistant Teacher, wherein, itwas provided that the petitioners would be granted pay scale ofRs. 545-10-5^-15-800-ZO-900-Z5-975/-, after a of two period •years. It was further provided that the petitioners would beentitled to the fixed pay of Rs. 300/- for a period of one year.2. Writ Petition (5) No.s 6868/2006, 6873/2006, 6874/2006 andW75/200t> are being disposed of by this common order as thefacts and question of law involved in these petitions are common.3.Sifflilarly sitiKrted employees had approached the AAadhydi PradeshState ^dministrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on24.8.1992 in O.A. No. 2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56others Vs. State of M.P. & others.)4. It was further- held that the said benefit would be given to allteachers and they should not be compelfed to approach theTribunal for similar benefit individuafly or collectively.5. Be'mq ag9rieved, the then State of Maidhya Pradesh had filed theSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 impugning Iheorder-thedated24.8.1992passedbyMadhyaPradeshSta+eAdministrativeTribunal,JabatpurinO.A.No. 2745/89. TheHon'ble Supreme Court after hearing leamed counsel for theparties, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and having regard to+he large financial implications, granted one year's time to sett-lethe claim for the arrears without mterest vide order dated3.1.1994. It was further observed that the intervention wouldwork out their ri9hts in accordance with law. This order dated24.8.1992 passed by the TribunalinO.A. No. 2745/1969is opplicable to •tihe petitioners bein9 similarly si'tuated and +hey areaccordin9ly en-titled to -the same benefit.
6. For the above sta+ed reosons, •the petitioners are 9nmted libertyto make a representa+ion to consider the cases of 1t>e petitionersif it stcmd on the same footmg as per order da-ted 24.8.1992 bythe Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur inO.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu ond 56 others Vs. State ofM.P.A o-thers.) ondsubsequently confirmedby orderdated3.1.1994 passed by the Hon'bte Supreme: Court in Special LeavePetition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gront relief accordingly.
7. These vwit petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as tocosts.
Sd/-Satish K.AgnihotriJudge