G) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH C /C'IO? 7/ w.P.(smo. (“‘7 12007 PETITIONER Samme Lal Khunte, S/o. / Shriv, Pratap Khunte, aged about y)” 40 years, Teacher (Udyog), Govt. x Hr. Sec. School —' Kera Block — Nawagarh, Distt.- Janjgir— Chamapa (C.G.) VERSUS . 1. State of Chhattisgrh, Through — The Secretary, Department of RESPONDENTS Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur 3. District Education Officer, Distt— Janjgir-Chmapa (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA p HGH COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILASPUR W. P45} N6. 1267 of 2967 Petitioner : Samme La! Khante Veraus Respondents : State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & athers Jk ,A 1 SB: Hcn' ie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Pre$enf: Shri Anii Singh Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sati5h Gupm, Deputy Gsvt. Advocate for the respondenta. ORQRR (Passed on this 2"” day of March, 200?) . The petitkmer waS appeinted as Udycg Teacher m the pay sca!e of R3. 1400 — 2540 vide cmer dated 24.7.1993 but dumg the course of two years probaticn he was paid fmed pay 0f Rs. 140% pm. Af:er camp!etion 6f two year’s imbaicn, he was granted regula.’ pay scaie. The Udyog Teacher is equiva!ent to Upper Division Teacher. I}x Learned caunsei aepearing for the petitiener submits that the issue inveived in the caee is astc whether the petitioner is entitled ta regular eay scale wef. the date cf initiai eppcintment er rem the date ef campietien cf prcbetien pericd. . The issue invcived, herein was cansidered ey the Madhya Pradesh state Admihistrative Tribunai. Jabaieur in (1A. Ne. 2745189 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State cf MP. & others}. wherein it was heid that the simitarrg situated teachers are emitted ta tequiar pay scaie w.e.f. the date ef initiai appointment. The matter was taken up ta the Heh'bie Supreme Ceurt in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Ne. 5892/93. The said petitien was dismissed by the Hcn'ble Supteme Court upheiding the decisien et the Tribune! to the , V1 Thakw h). effect that the Teachers/Assiatant Teache:s are entmed to re§ufar 9ay saage fram date a! initéa! appsintment. Learneii caunse! aapearmg f0: the petmoaef further aubmitg that thEs Scum wwb conaidering the same issue in Vyae Narayan Diwakar & athefe Vs. tate 0f Chhattiegaih & ethe:e (WP. (S) Ne. 5551 (#2006) by order dated 25-10-2095, has gianted :egmer pay ssale w.e.f. the date of initia! appeintmeni Leamed counse! aepearing fer the parties icintw submit that thie caee is U1 equarew cevered by the decisicn of this Ceur: in the case ef Was Nerayan Diwakar and othefs {seam}. in View ef {haa this petit‘oh is eiieweci in the same terms, No ereier as is cesis. i i Sdl- i Satish K.Agnihetri 1‘ i Judge i