w. p.tsi NO. i<53 ota^r PeUtioner Versus Respondents :1. 2. 3. KheniKuF^rtet S/oShriehhsftltErtPatel ^>ed aboul54 yeais, Post-test. Teacher, R/ovills®e&Po^Usroet, Tah. & Dist: Raigarti-(C.G.) State ofChhatBsgaTh, Through: Secrdary Schoel Education Department D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) District Educafion Officer Raigarh, Di^: Raiflarh-(C.G.) Block EducaUon CTRcer Btock - Raigwh Di^rict - Rai^irh SB: Hon'bte Mr. Ju^tce Satish K. Agnihobi, J Present Mr. N.K. Mahnya, Advocateon behaffof Mr. WvekKumar Pandey, Advocate fbrthe pefitioner. Ms. Deepali Parid^, Panel tawyer for the respondents/^Erte. ORDER (Passed on this 1^tl Day ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petttioner was appointedon 22.11.73 as Up-Shltehhak on tbced pay scate of Rs. 150/-. After completron oftwo years probaton, he wss granted regular pay scaJe of Rs. 545^501-. 2, Leamed counsel appearing for ttie petiUoner submte ttiat the Issue involved in the case is astowhether, the petttioner is enUUed to regutar pay scal®w.e.f. the date of inttial appoinbnert or from ttie date of compIeBon ofprobaUon period. 3. The issue involved, herein was considered by tte Madhya Radesh State Adminidratwe Tribunal, Jabalpur in OA No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Stats of M.P. & <Aiers), wherein it was held that the similarty situated teachere are entHted to regutar pay scate HU^^^UM^UAUAiaaBtebiffiMftS^^lBfaAi^Elilfes^te&^i^^ ^ w.e.f. tt»(tert»<rf initlat appMrtniwtf. Tlw msUecvasWeuk up to !BI» Hon'bte Supreme Court in Special LeiB»P^Uon (CMI) Na. 6892@3. The sakl peUtion was dismissed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court uphotding the decision of the TrUnmaf to tte elfeet ftat the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are enfiUed to regular pay scato from dats of initial appointment. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for tt>e peUSoner ferther submte Uiat this Court, white considering ttie sam®issue in Ram l&imsB- Sahu and ottiers vs. The State Govt. of Chhsrttisjprh & andher (W. P. (s) No. 813 of 2007) by orcter dafsd 122.2007, has granted r^ular pay scate w.e.f. the date of iflUial appointment. 5. LeamwS counset appearir^fiM'ths partiesJoinUy submltftatthis casefe squarely covered by the decidon <rf ttiis Courtm fito case of Ram Kumar Sahu and othere vs. The State Govt. of ChhatUsgarh & another (Supra). 6. In view of that, this petltxm is allowed in ttie same twnK. No order as to costs. ^,_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge