IGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASP wfzt. Petition (S) No‘ mas or 2008 Vedram Patel, S/G Late Shn' Chakmdhar Patel, aged about. 56 years, Assistam Teachcr. Governemnt Primary School, Kimdimal Nagar, Black Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). A PFTITIGNER VERSUS 'RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Swretary, Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Distn'ct Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). . Block Education OEwer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). v V (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CGNS l I l UTION OF INDIA B: H'ble atish K. hotri .L) Present : i Shri Anil Mouiya, Advocate for the petiticmer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Statex’i'espomients. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18 day of Jame, 2608) With the consent of the parties, the mattef is taken up for hearing onally. . The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.10.1975 ‘on fixed 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 case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale, wet. the date initial appointment or alter completion of probation period. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative.Tiibunal, Jabalpur in OA No. 2745/89 (Madhukant " Yadu an'd 56_others)Vs. State of MP. & others), wherein it was held :~\l i ’ QE x t7 H UR . S on Mr. S A i @, that the similarly situated teachsrs are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Special 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/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appointment. 3. In View of the. above stated submissions made by learned counsel for the’paities, the writ petition is disposed of in the same teims 1e the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider his case, if he stands on the same footings as‘per order dated 24.08.1992 bv the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur 1n OA No 2745 of 89 Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by order dated O? 01 1994 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingly. 4. In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a