HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTI§GARH AT BILAsPUR W. P,(5) No 1476 of 2G0? Pei’i'fior’xer Gakulcx Singh Sidar' sen of Aaghan Singh Sidar, aged abouf 37’ year's, ASST. Teacher, Primary School Bankhe‘m, Biock Devebpmenf and Disfric‘r Korba, Chha‘rfisgarh. Versus 1. 5mm of Chhc‘Hisgarh Through The Secretary Schooi Educa'rion Deparfmenf Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhai‘fisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Tribai Welfare Department Korba, Chhai’fisgarh The Assis’mnf €ommissicner, Tribal Weifare Depar‘rmen'r Korba (6.6.) The Direci'or, Pubiic Insiruci'ion Department Raipur (C5) Responden+£ SB: Hon'ble Mr. Jusfice 5ai'i3h K. Ageihc‘rri, J Present Mr. Om. P. Sahu, Advocate for The pe‘i’itioner. Ms. Deepaii ?andey, Pane! Lawyer for responoems/S‘i'a‘i‘e. G R D E R (Passed on ihis 14*h Day of March, 2007) 1‘ The pe‘i'i'iiorier was oppoin‘i'ed vioe order daied 19.01.1990 (Annexure P/i) as Aseisfon'i' Teacher on fixed pay scaie of h) Rs. 300/~. Af'i’zr‘ complefiari af arse year proba'f'fon, he was gmrrfzd reguiar' pay scale of Rs. 1200-2000/—. . Learned tounsei appearing for fhe pe‘i’i‘rioner submi'fs +ha'i' fhe issue involved in The case is aS'm whe‘i'her, We pew‘i‘HGner is en‘l'i'Hed f0 regalar‘ pay scaie wwf. fhe &G+e of ini‘fia! appoinfmenf or‘from 1'he dafe of ccmple‘fiora of probcd'ion period. . The issue invo!ved, herein was coasidered by 1’he Madhya Pradesh Sfa‘fe Adminisfmfive TribunaL Jabalour irl OJ’L No. 2745/89 (Madhukonf Yadu and 56 o'fhers Vs. Sfufe of MP. & ofhers), wherein if was heid 'Hm‘f ‘i’he simikxrly si‘i‘ua‘red ‘I‘eachers are enfi+¥ed ’fo reguiar pay scale w.e.f."%he dafe of inifial appoin'rment The mcd’fer was faken-up 1'0 fhe Hon'ble Supreme Cour-1’ in Special Leave Pe‘l'ifiah (Civii) No. 6892/93. The said pefi‘i’ion was dismissed by The Hah'bie Supreme Cour? uphoiding The decision of The Tribunai f0 ‘ihe effec'f fhaf fhe Teachers/Assisfan'r Teachers are eh‘H‘Hea’ +9 regular pay scale from da‘re of ini‘I'ial appoihfmenf. l Learned counsel appearing for The pei‘i‘l’ioner fur'l'her submifs 'l’ha’l ‘l'his Cour'l', while considering fhe same issue in Sushil Tiwari (Si ofhers Vs. Sfal’e 50W. of Chhaf‘f’isgarh & o‘rhers (WP. (5) No. 597$ of 2006) by order dafed 7~11~2006, has growled regular pay scale w’ef. The dafe of ini‘l'ial appoinfment 5. Lzarned courlse! appam‘ing for fhe par’ries join‘riy submit ma? 1his casz is §quare§y covered by fi'he decisiion of 1h§s €our? in “H13 casa of i & ofhzrs Vs. Shfa Govt of Chha’f‘risgavh & a’khers Sushi! Tiwur (Supra). é. In v§ew of +ha+ ‘fhis pa+i+ion ig aHowed in The same +er'ms. No o as ‘ra casts. Judge rder Kw“ _ Sd/— , Satish K. Agnihotri ;