HIGH C$URT GF CHH§T?SSGARH: BILA$PUI§ Writ Petition {3) N0. 2’1 $5 9f 2m}? Pemianer Chandra Kumar Sen. S/o. Shri Gaimi Lal Sen‘ Age abaut 55 years. Asstt. Teachera Govt. Pt'sman/ $chooi, Rum; Biock— Abhanpur, Dist:.- Raipur (QGJ‘ Versus Resnondems 1) $tate Gavemment of Chhattisgarh, thmugh : Secmtaw, Triba! & Education Department, B.K.8. Bhawan‘ Raipur {CG}. 2) District Education Officer, iDistt —- Raipur (CG) 3) Bkack Educaticm Cfficen Slack - Abhanpur, amt. a» Rama: (CG). {Wfit Petition under Aa'ticie 22$ 0f the Consiitution of indie) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K“ Agnihotri, J. Fresent; Shri Aga‘y Shriva$tava, coxmsezi far the petitinner‘ Shri AS, KacchaWaha, Govt. Advecate for thg Staie. \ ORAL GRwER {Passed an Edaecember, 200:1; The netitioner was abnointed- on 1‘3~7-19'i5 as Asséswnt Teacher 0n fixed pay saaie ‘of Rs100i—. After completion of the prcbamn, he was granted reguiar pay scale‘ 2) Learned counsel appearing far the petiticner submits that the issue invaéved 3n the case is also whether the eetitioner is entitied t9 reguiar pay scaie with effect from the date of initiai appeintment of after comptetion of probation period. 3) The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabatpur in OANo. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 58 others Vs. State of MPt & others) wherein it was held that the simiiatiy situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scaie with effect from the Gate af inétiai a‘gpcintment, The matter was kaken up to the Hon’bie Supreme Court. The appaa! was wlismissed by the Hon’bée $upreme Court uphoiding the decision of the Tribunai to the effect that the TeachersfAssistantTeachers we enmied to regmar pay scab frem date of initial appointment. 4) Leamed counsei appearing fer the petitioner further submits that ms Court, whi!e censidering the same issue in Ram Kumar uahu and oihers Vs. $tate Govt. of Chhaiiisgarh and anather in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 0f 2007 by order dated 32-02-2G07, has granted reguSar pay scaie with effect fram the date of initiat appointment. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submit that thte case is squarely covered by the decision of this Ceuit in the case of Ram Kumar $ahu (supra). However, the state is at iiberty te verify the facts of appointment as to whether the case of the petitioner is simiiar to that of the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 6) in View of the above, this petition is aiioweoi in the same terms. No order as to costs. 1 ffr‘q/: Sdl- Satis‘n K. Agnihotri Judge Raju