mGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARHAT BILA8PUR 8.B. : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1443 <rf2007. PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 Kailash Bihari Kaushik, S/o Bidur Lal Kaushik, Ay,ed about 43 years, Assistant Teacher, Government Middle School, Pandaniya, District Korba(C.G.) VERSU8 1. State of Chhatti^arii, Throu^i Ae Secretaiy, Education Departaaeat, D.K.S. Bhawui, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Distriet Education Qffieer, DistrictKorba(C.G.) 3. The Block Education OfBeer, Ka^hora, District Korba (C.G.) 4. The Director, Public Insteuctioa, Raipur(C.G.). Present: Shri Ahswani Shukla, Advocate for tfae petitioaers. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the Stote/respondents. ORDER w (Passed on 13" March 2007) 1. The petitioner was appointed on 21.01.1986 as Deputy T^dier oa a fixed pay scale of Rs. 300/-. After completion of two ywxs of probation, he was granted regutar pay scale. 2, Leamed eounsel appeariBg for the petittoaer submtt that the issue involved in the ease is asto whedier, the petitioaer is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initlal appointment or from the date of completion ofprobation period- [ 3. The issue involved, hCTein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ia O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukmt Yadu and 56 others Vs. Stete of M.P. & olhers), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers sse entitted to regular pay scale w.e,f. the date of initial appointment The mattar was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special L^ve Petition (Cival) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholdmg the decision ofthe Tribunal to the effect tiiat the Teachers/Assistant Teachens are entided to reguiar pay scale from date ofinitial appointenent. 4. Leamed couasel appearing for the petitioner fiirtfaer siibmits ftet dus Court, while consideriag the same issue in Sushil Tiwari & dtbers Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgaih & othere (W.P. (S) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-1 1-2006, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. th«date ofinitial appoiHtment. 5. Learoed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit Ifaat 1his case is squarely covered by the decision oftiiis Court in the case of Susfail Tiwari & others Vs. Stete Govt. of ChhattisgMh & othere (Supra). 6. In view ofthat, this petition is allowed in tiie same tenns. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit