il^ v^,^ <?*<<>' <%^' HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fS') No. 1174 of2009 Ajay Mahapatra Age about 41 years, S/o Shri D.B. Mahapafa-a Go\'t. Hr. Sec. School Lakhanpuri Kanker Distt. Kanker (CG). 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Tlu-ough the Secretar^', Education Departnient, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Distt. Edueation Oflicei', Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). 3. Biock Education Ofiicer Kankei- Distt. 4. Treassuty Account & Pension KaiAer Distt. Kanker (CG). (W&H PETmON UNDER AKIICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjIION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satisfa K. Agiriliotri, J.) Present : Shn Somkaiit Verma, Advocate fbr the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State. >fll 1. 2. (Passed oa 28"' day ofFebruary, 2099) The petrtioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay ofRs. 300/. .\&es completion ofprobation, the petitioner was granted regulai- pay scale. Leained counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitledto regular.pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. The issue invoived, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Admimstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2445/89 (Madhiifcant Yadu and 56 otiiers Vs. State of M.P. & Ofhers), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of »3i 4. 6. initial appomtinent. The matter was taken up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Honlsle Supreme Court upholdmg the decision ofthe Tribunal to the efi'ect fhat flie Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitledto regular.pay scale fi'om Leamed counsel appearing for tiie petitioner submits that this Court while considermg the same issue in Ram Kumar Saiiu and others Vs. State Govt. of CUiattisgarh and another m Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial a Leaiiied eourisel appearing for fhe parties jointly submit fhat this case is squarely covered by the decision oftliis Court in the case of Rain Kuniar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chihattisgarh and aiiother (Supra). However, the state is at libert^' to verify fhe facts of appointinent asto whefher tiie case of tlie petitioner is similar to that of tlie order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 813 of2007 (Supra). In view of the above, this petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the coacemed authority, ifso advised, for considei'ation ofhis case in the lieht of judenient aid order dated 12.02.2007 passed by tttis court in VV.P. (S) No. 813 of2007 (Supra).Noorderastocosts. ^^ ' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .!-. fy / Sairj