i<y HiSH COURT OF CHHArr®©A8 BU.ASPUR Writ PeUUon (S) No. »»3of 2008 Pstitioners 1) Smt, Ouraa Chauhan, S/o. Shri Harisingh Chauhan aged about 51 yeare, Assistant Tsaoher, Govt. Primary Sohool, Kaurinbhata, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 2) Smt. Shushila Kunjam, w/o. Shri S.K. Kunjam, agec! about 47 yeara, Heaci Mistress, Govt. Pie-Niidciie Sohoo!, LaWioti, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3) Smt. Sar.vari Bsgum, W/o. Shri Sheiiw Jabbar Quresh'!, aged about 56 years, A.ssistant Teaoher, Govt. Boys Primar^' Schooi, Chowkhadsapara, Distri'ct Rsinsndcigon (CG). Shri Suresh Kumar Ninnaikar. S/o. Shri Sahasram Nirmaikar, agea about 45 years, sosd sbc'ijf ^ yssrs; Assistsnt T9actisr, Govt. Prsmary' Sohool, Baatgaon, Oistrict Rajnandgaon (CG). 1) State of Chhattisgarh, tnrough the Secretary, Eduoation Department, D.K.S, Bhav/an, Raipur, Distt. Raipur. 2) Distriot Education Officer, Rajnandgaopn, District Rajnandgaon (CG). (Writ Petitton under Articie 226 of the Constitution of inctia.] SB: Hon'biaf.fr. Safish K. Agnlhotri, «j. Presenfc Shri Anoop Majumdar, counsei for the petittoners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lav<yer for ths State. With consent of tearned counse! appsaring for the parties, tbe matter Is heard finaliy. 2) Learneci counsei appearina for the oetitioners submits that ths oetitioners wsre appointed as A^istant Teachers in 1980 and 1981 on a fixed pav scaie oT Rs.150/- for a period of two years. After compteSion of two years probation, the pstitioners were granted regular pay scaie. i-te further submits t^at She issue invoived in the case is -X asto whether the petitioners are eraitied to regular pay scale with efrect from the date of initia! aRpointment or after compietion of probation period. 3) The issue involved herein was oonsidered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745/89 { Madhukant Yadu and S6 others vs State of SV1.P. & others), whereln it was held that the similariy sitLiated teaohers ars entitiea to reguiar pay scaie w.e.f. the ciate of inltial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appea! was d^missed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, uphoiding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teaohers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to reguiar pay scaie from date of inltiat appointment. 4) in view of the above stated submissioRs made by learned counsei for the partfes, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e., the petltioners are granted iiberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider the petitioners' oase, if they stand on the same footings as per order dated 24-8-1992 by the iVladhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur, in O.A.No. 2745 of 89 (Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequentlyconfirmed by order ciated 3-1-1994 passed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Speciai Leave Petition (Civin No. 8892/93 and grant relief acoordingiy. 5) in view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as to oosts. iaiu Sd/- Satish K; Agnihotri Judge