^^^ ^f COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASPUR Vtf.P.lSSNo. 1479 of 2008 Vidyanand Sahu, S/o Shri Nandu Ram Sahu, aged about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Kodapuri, Biock Takhatpur, District Bi.aspur (C.G.) Versas 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schooi Education Department, D.K.S. Bha'vvan, Ralpur(C.G.) 2 The Commissioner, Tribal VVeifare Department, Chhattlsgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Director Pubiic InstructJon Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 4 District Educatlon Officer, Biiaspur (C.G.) 5 Block Education Offlcer, Takhatpur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF_THE CONST2TUTSON OF SNDIA ApDearance: Shri K.S. Pav^/ar, Counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate State/respondents on advance copy. for the ORAL (07.03.2008) S-O-NIL KXJ'MAH SIMHA, J. Heard. . Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the issue invoivea in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to reguiar pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from the date of compietion ot' probation period. He submits that the issue invoived hereln was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State W.P.fS)No. 1479/2008 I^NWNS^Nlt' shyna Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), whereln, it was held that the simiiarly situated teachers are entltled to reguiar pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Speciai Leave Petition (Clvli) No. 6892/93. The sald petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the declsion of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/ Assistant Teachers are entitied to regular pay scaie from the date of jnltiat appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, whiie considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu & others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh & another (W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has granted reguiar pay scale w.e.f. the date of initiai appointment. Learned counsel for the parties jointty submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of thJs Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and another (Supra). !n view ofthat, this petition is a!!owed in the same terms. However, this order shall be subject to aii verifications made by the State regarding facts pteaded in the petrtion. ——-— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge