\9 {wek5 HIGH COW}?! OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 2931 of2 " l’ETITIONER Sukki Ram Eagle, aged abeut 6E years, 8/0 Shil- Makundi Kosci. Assistant Taacher Tribal and Welfare Primary School Korbi, Hock Podi, Uproda, District Korba (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner Tribal and Weifare Department Raipur (CG). The Assistant Commissioner Tribal and Welfare Department Korba (CG). . Block Education Oific-er, Podi—Uproda, District Korba (CG). (WRIT PETI’I‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 2269.27 OF THE CONS I H U I [ON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon‘ble Mr..Satis}:i K. Agnihotrir J.) Present : Shri Dhire‘ndm Mishra’, Advocate .or the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain. Panel Lawver for the State/"respondents. U3 ORAL 0113.13.11 (rassed on 18‘“ day or June, 2603) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.10.1975 o hxed pay of Rs. 100/~. After completion of two years of probation period, he was granted regular pay scale of Rs. 169—300/— on 10.10.1977. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the ease is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale W.e.f. the (late initial appointment or aiter completion of probation period. 2. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal; labalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant \ . Yadu and ‘56 others Vs. State of MP. & others), Wharein it was held 4 n that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.£ ills date of initia! appointment. The maite-r was taken up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Spec-ia! Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Asshtant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of ioitial appoiatinent. ’. In View of the above stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to conder his case, if he stands on the same footingsras per order dated .8.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.Al No. 2745 of >89 Madhukant ’Yadu (supra) and sbsequntly eonfnmed by order dated 03.01.1994 passed by the Hn’ble Supreme Coutt in Special Leave Fetition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingly. 4. View ofthe foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto yagw,tgE—yamwMu‘ $ .. MM“ » Sd/— costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l fL, ‘zw ’ 1 si 240 ue o In »,l