§ETITI$NER RESPGEé’DExTS Aggearance: E: {$g No. 7022 of 2097 W Bhopal Smgh Rana aged about 46 yams, 3,10 Shu' Séhd€V Sillgh Rafre, Assistant Téacher, Primaly Schcol, Nawapara, Block Mungcli, DiStIict Korba {C.G.) ¥€rsus 1 taie 01‘ puhatiiSgarh, Through Sécra‘vary, r/m School Educatian Dspamment, DKS Bhawall, Raipur {0G1} 3 The Dimctor, Public insinw‘tion Depaltment, Raipux‘ {0G,} Triba} 8a We'lfara Dapartmam Korba {c.G.) 3, Assis‘iazyt CommiSsionar, 4. Biock Eciucation 0&car, Korba, Di$irict Korba {QGJ} GF IEDEA Shri KS. Pawar, Counséel for the. petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Palm} Lawy€r fer th€ StatE on advaxmo copy. , SU'EQIL K'UMAR SEWHA, J Hoard. Leained counsei for the pe’mjonor submits That tho issuc invoivsd 1'11 the caso is as to whe‘ihsr tho po’iitioxler is onti’ded x0 reguiax pay soak WE. date of compietion of involvod herein was Administrative Tribunal, ‘Ja‘balpur in 0A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadti and 56 others Vo. State of Mi). anci others), wherein, it was held that the similarly Situated teachers are entitled to regLtlar pay scale wet". the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Peation (Civil) Noio892j93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Oomt. uphotdirig the decision of the Tn‘bunal to the effect @RAL DRDER k'é’é. 1 1.2007; f. the date of initial aypomtment or from 'fhe probatioo pen‘od. He submits mat the issue considered by the Madhya Pradesh $tate VIRET PETITIQW UE‘DER ART‘IQL‘gQiZé 6F THE CGNSTETUTiDj! WP. (XS) No.7022/2007 that the T6ach€rsfAssisfant Teachers axe entit1€d to regular gay scale from ths date ofinitial appointment. Leamai counsel for the poti’rionor further submits that this Court, whilo considsn'ug the samo issue in Raln Kumar Sahu and others VS. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh a11d another (WPXS) No.813 of 2007) by Older datecl 12.2.2007, has granted regular pay scale Wef. the date of initial appointment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofRam Kumar Sahu and another (supra). In View of that, this petition is allowed in the same terms. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition t Sdl— Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge vShyna 2