*» *w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SlnateBeneh : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanlhotri. J. WritPetitionfS.I N0.3355 of 2008 Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Chaitu ,Ram Nishad, Age about 63 years, Asstt. Teacher, S/o Shri Latel Singh Nishad, Village - Dhansara, P.0. Tumakala, Tah, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy Tribal & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt. Raipur(e.G.> District Eclucation OfScer, Dlstt. Durg (C^.)S-,,—.:,:„_; ,., Block Eaucation OfBcer, Dhamdha, Distt;Durg(C.G.) Joint Directpr, Treasury, Account & Penslon. Dlstt. Ralpur (G.G.) WritPetition underArticle 226oftheConstitution oflndia Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counset for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Depuly Government Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORALQRDER (Passed on this 1st day of July, 2008) With theconsent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner wasappointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100/- in the year 1973. After completion pf probation period, the petitioner was granted regular pay-scale. He further submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of jnitial appointment or after completion of probation period. Learned counsel further submits that i-SSS!:!,S^3i7,^3iSSSSSKaS-SS:SS3WSSSSSS'Fi-si 2.— ^s. the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur passed in Original Application No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and56 ofhers vs. State of M.P. and athers), wherein it was held that similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. (3) The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hoh'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in Madhttkant Yaduand 56 others vs. Stateof M.P. andott rs(supra). (4) In viewof the above submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, i.e., the petitioner is granted tiberty to make a representation, if soadvised.to consider his ease, ifhe stands on the same footings, as perthe order dated 24-08-1992 passed bythe Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribuna), Jabalpur in Original Application No.2745/1989 (MsKffiukant Yadif arxl 56 others vs. State ofM.P. and others) (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the order dated 03-01-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/1993 and grant relief accordingly. (5) In view ofthe foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Gopal Sd/- satishK.Agnihotri Judge :-v-^^^A3isS3s^s^^^cAA4&y^T5ffie^a^^?3sidt.^^^^at>fli6irft.^'^7?^F?^^^