6'-, ff ^t- "'y-'. ^4; H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sma!e_Bench : Hon'bleShrl Satish K. Aanihotn, J, Writ Petition (S.t No.3360 of 2008 Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. Manuel Ekka, S/o Late Daver Ekka, aged 60 years.working as Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sarasmar, resjdent of Kunkuri, P.0. Kilkilla, Tahsil 'Patthalgaon, Dlstrict Jashpur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Assistant Commissioner. Tribal Welfare, Jashpur, Districl Jashpur <C.G.) Block Education OfRcer, Patthalgaon, DistrictJashpur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article 226/2270fthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy GovernmentAdvocate forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 1 day of July, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard flnatly, (2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.100/- in the year 1974. After comptetion of 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 entitted to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. Leamed counsel further submits that the issue invotved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of the \ -•2-. Madhya Pradesh Stete Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur passed in Original Application No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others vs. State of M.P. and others), wherein it was held that similarly situated teachers are entitted toregular pay-scale with effectfrom the date of initial appointment. , (3) The matter was taken-up to th$ Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu and 56 ofhere vs. Stateof M.P. andottiers (supra). (4) In view of 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 liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider his case, if he stands on the same footings, as per the orcter dated 24-08-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunat, Jabalpur in Original Application No.2745/1989 (Madhutent Yadu and 56 othersvs. StateofM.P. ando rs) (supra) and subsequently conflrmed bythe orderdated 03-01-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/1893 and grant relief accordingly. (5) In view ofthe foregoing.the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Sopal