C ^ i^>). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH W. P. (Sl No. ^^ 167 1 PETn-CONER L.ahre, S/o. ^.%^ <^i^/ ..IC v^'-'** f7\^ '^'?..-• ^y' 3'^.years, Working as Assistant Teacher, 6ovt. Middie Nonbirra, Block - Kartaia, - Janjgir Champa (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of The Secretary Department School Education b.K.S. Bi -c0?1 !si '£*" , a CP ^.,<i 2.^The District Education Offi ^y Distt. - 3^ Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Korba(<;.6.) 4,/Block Education Officer, Block - Korba, Kartala, Katghora Distt. - WRIT PETET CONSTETUTEON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE NATURE OF MANbAMUS. CERTIORARI OF WRIT OF LIKE NATURE The petitioner most humbly begs to submit as under:- G.tQUiH A W. P.(S) No. 997 of 2007 Petitioner : Kunjbihari Lahre Versus ndents State of Chhatj-isgarh and otiiers 'Vl SB; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Setish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adyocate for ihe petitioner. Mr. Sushi! bubey, 6.A. for the respondents/Stete. 0'assed on 21ST t)ay of February, 2007) 1. The petitioner vms appointed vide order dated 1/07/89 (P/l) os Assistant Teache" on fixed poy scale of fts. 300/-. After compietion of one year probation, he was granted regular pay- scole. 2. Learned counsel qspearing for the petitiorier submits that the issue involved in the cose is asto whether, th®petitioner is entitled to regular pay sca'e w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from the date of compietion of probation period. 3. TTse issue involved, herein wos considsred by the /Aadhyc Prcdesh Stttte Administrative Tribunol, Jabaipur In O.A. No. 2745/89 Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), wherein it was held that the similcr'y situated teachsr-s are entitled to regukr pay scale w.e.f. -i+ie date of inltiai appointffient. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'bie Supreme Court In Special Leaye 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 scaie from date of initial appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State ©ovt.of Chhattisgar-h & o-fters (W.P. (5) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has gr-anted reguiar pcy sccse w.e.f. the dcte of initial appointment. 5. Learned counsei dppearmg for the pcrties jointiy submit that this case 'is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhcttisgas'h a others 6. In view of that this psl'i+Jon is ailowed in the same terms. No order yegesh O.S •'•O COStS. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge