HIGH CiOURT OF CHHATnSGARH, BIIASPUR PETITIONBR RESPOMDBNTS W.P. (81 Bo.7393 of 2<W7 Vishnii Prasad Rathore, s/o Shri Munu Rain Rathore, aged 46 years, Assistant Teacher Govenameat Priuiaiy School, Gondbordi, Block Kharsia, Distnct Raigarh(CG) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Scliool Education Deparhnent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.5 8 Thc Director, Public Instruction Departinent Raipur(CG) 3 Assistant Coiimussioner Tribal & WelfarR Departanent, District Raigai-h(CG) 4 Rlock Ediication OfRcer, Kharsia, District Raigarh(CO) WRIT PETITION UNDER^nTICLE 226 OF THE COB8TITUTION OF IHDIA AtUtearance; Shri Anil Mouiya, Counsel for thc petitioncr. Shn Pradeep Singh, Panel I^awyer for t.he State on advaace copy. ORAL ORDER (13.12.2007) SUMIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard. Leamed coiinsel for the petitioTier siibmits that flie issue involved in the case is as to whether the petitioQer is entitled to regular pay sca1e w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointinent or froin the date of coinptetion of prohatioo period. He siibroits fhat the issue involved herein was coTisidered hy fhe Madliya Pradesh State Adiniiustrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir m O.A. No.2745/89 (MadTiukaTit Yadu and 56 otliers Vs. Stete of M.P. and ofhers), wherein, it was he1d tbat the siinilarly sitiiated teachers are entifled to wgiilar pay scale w.e.f. fhe date nf initial appointment. The inatt.er was tateen iip to the Hon'hle SnptiRme Court in Special I-<-ave Petition (Cwil) No.fi892/Q3. The said pRtition was dism.issed >y the Hon'bte Supremc Conrt iiphoWing the decision' of the SSHeisaseissiBsisa^BSis^faa •2- WP(S) 7393/2007 Tribunal to the efFect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale ftom the date ofmitial appointinent. I^amed counsel for the petitioner furthcr suhinits that tTus Court, while considering the sarae issiie in Ram Kuinar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Cbhattisgarh anri another (W.P,(S) No.813 of 2007) hy order dated 12.2.2007, has granted regiilar pay scale w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointinent. Leamed coiinsel for tbe partics jointly suhinits that this case is squarely covewA by the decision of this Court in the case of Rain KiiinaT Sahu and anothcr (siipra). In view of that, fhis petition is a11owp.fi in t'he same terms. However, this order sliall TIR suhject to all VRrifications raade hy thc State regarrling facts pleaded in the petition. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siisha Judee sunita w~