3‘ > HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.p. {sy “0219512008 Petitioner Guhamm Dhritlahm S/o. Shri Dev Ram Dhn'tlahre, .Agc about 52 years, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. . Primaly School, Semaria, Blook-Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Education & Tribal Depaltment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Distnbt Education O-Eicer Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Block Education O$ce13 Kasdol Distt. — Raipur(C.G.) RESPONDENTS CO ppearance : Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. M's. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State on advzmce (my. ORAL $RDER £15.042Q03} UNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Leanned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved r- 1‘11 the case is as to Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale Wef. the date of initial appointment or from the date of completion of probation period. He submits that the issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Adminisn‘ative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 ('Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. &. others), wherein, it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appoinmient. u’l‘he matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eh'ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale nom the date of initial appointment. A S 2 On WP. (3.) No. 2195/2003 @ Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu 85 others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & another (W.P.’(s) No.813 of 2007) by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. date of initial appointment. Lemed counsel for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Comt in the case of Ram 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 ‘tate mgaiding facts pleaded in the petition. Sd/- 5 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I