HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 2887 of 2068 PETITIONERS : 1. Ganesh Ram Q3111; S/o Shri Bhaktu Ram Sahu aged about 50 vears Head Master Government M1ddle Schooi Banjan Block Bazamkala, Dlstnct Rawalh (CG) 31 vears Upper Dmsmn Teacher Aashram Mtddle qchoo! Kenabhatha, Block Baxamke‘a Dlstrict Raigarh (CG). Lala Ram Sahu /o Qhn Bhom Lal Sahu aged about gq VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Depaxtment, DKS Bhawan,‘ Raipur (CG). ha RES?ONDENTS 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh (CG). S“ The Assistant Lommissioner. Tribal & Welfare Department, Rawarli (CG) 4. Block Education Officer Baramkela, Dismct Raxgarh (CG) (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) QB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : ghn A1111 Mourya Advocate fm the petlttouere Shrl Amnto Das Panel Ldwvei 101 the State/ieepondenis ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18‘“ day or June, mes) ‘Nith the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. l. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on fixed pay of Rs. 150/-. Aiter completion of two years of probation period, they were granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioners are entitled to regalar pay scale wef. the date initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 2. The Issue involved herein was co .snlered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tubunal Jahalpui in O A No 274i/89 (Madhulcant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. & others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachars are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) N0. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers ate entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appointmeat. . In View of the above stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioners are granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider their case, ifthey stand on the same footings as per order dated 24.08.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in 0A. No. 2745 of g9 Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently continued by order dated 03.01.1994 passed by the Hon’ble- Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Citlil) No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingly. . in View of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of. No order asto Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge sW .