fi'?; p p:". ...^ SKKs i"1 ;--,-, c -(^ -L^L^ c \ 5_£l ..••"^..••' .^y.^ ^^'^" ../•'" ./••'."-^•' ^yy ^^ ~"^»fWtWWr. ^" r, (Now Uike'; iya Lai Uike, vears. Assistant Teacher, (Science) Govt. H. S.-S. '.) 2. sn, agi ecturer , (Hin. ••arytr'-Ay'-.-s Biock Distt. - Korba (C.G.) i, inroui UEHci'ii, Ui Ralpur (C.G.) 2. Director ^' Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur 4^- Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District- Dura, 'C.G.) WRIT, HIW COURT OT CWMTTIS6ARH AT BILO'UR W. P.(S) No. 921 of 2007 Petitioners Sfflt. Sarojni Ttwtair, (Now Uike) Versus Respondents ; State of ChhattK9arh cnd oltwrs SB: Honl>le Mr. Justfce Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. A.S. Rajput, Adwcute for tlw petitioners. AAs. Sunita Jain, Panet Louiyer for State/nspondents. OR D E R (Passed on this 19* Dcy of Februory, 2007) 1. The petitioners were eppointed ni -the yeou" 1988-89 as Assistnnt TeachersA^ehirers on fixed pay scale of Rs. 300/-. After completion of one year probation, they ware gronted reyilar pay scale of Rs. 975-1650/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for tlw petitioners submits that the issue involved in -the case is asto whelftw, •ttie petitior»rs are entitted to reydw pcy scale wjK.f. Ihe date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein^was consictered by -the AAachya Praelesh State Administrartwe Tribunal, Jabalpur 'm O.A. No. 2746/89 (Madhukmt Yaehi and 56 others Vs. S'tate of MJ>. & others), wherein it was held Ihat the siniilarly d'hiuted teadwrs are entitled to regutar pay scaje w.e.f. -rtie date of OTttial appomtmerrt-. The matter wos taken-up to 1he Hon'ble &J(»remeCot»tin Special Leave Petition (Gvil) No. 6892/93. The seud petition was dismissed by 1he Hon bte Siyreme Court uphokfcg the ctedsion of the Tribuwl to -the effect Ihat the Teadiers/Asastunt Teachers are entitled to regulur pcy scale from date of initwt appointBnent. 4. Learned counsel oppeoring for the petitioners fur-thw aAmits ttwt this Coyrt, while conskiering Ihe same issi» in Sudiil Twwri & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Oihattisgtn-h A frthers (WP. (9) No.5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has granted regular pay scale we.f. Ihe dale of initial appointment. 5. Leamed counsel appegring f®r-ttie parties Jointly submit that Ihis oase is sqwirely covered by •the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Tiwari & olhers Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhdrttisgarh A oltiers (Supra). 6. In view of that this petition is allowed in the same tenns. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge