ws-3sS.»--.s»»'3a!cst!iW.»mse WRIT PE'nTION ( S ) No. 7653 of2007 1. Sankarsain Hota S/o Shri Ranidas Hota, Age about 54 years, U.D.T., Govt. H.S.School, Basna, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Sahas Ram Sonwatii S.'b Sliri Mahaveer Sonwani, Ased about 51 vears, U.D.T. R/o Aadivasi Balak Aasl'iraai, Cl'uiotetteniri, Di^t. - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Bhagbhatiya Sidar S/o Sliri Madansingh Sidar, Age about 50 yeare, Head master, Govt. High Scliool, Bhukel, Distt. - Maliasamund (C.G.) 4. Rohit Kumar Panigrahi S/o Shri Pamieshwar Paaigi'ahi, Age about 52 yeafs, L.D.T. R/o Chhotetemri, Post Basna, Distt. - Mahasannind (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh Through: - Seci'etaiy, Tribal & Education Depaftmetit, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistaait Conmiissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Distt. - Mahasamuad, (C.G.) 3. District Edueation Officer, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF IN] Preseat: Shri Ajay Shi-ivastava, Advocate tbr the petitioners. Snri Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondeiits. (Passed on 02'"' day of Januar\', 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistaat Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100,'-. After completion ofthe probation, they were granted regular pay scale. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whsther the are entitled to refflilar pay scale w.e.f the date of initial appointment or afier completion of ^ 3. The issue iavolved herein was considered by the Madliya Pradesh State Adrmmstrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir in O.A. No. 2445/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & Others), Wherein it was held that tfae snnilarly situated teachers are entitled to resular pay scale w.e.f. fhe date of mitial appointment. The matter v/as taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Tfae appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that tiie Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to reguiar pay scale from the date ofiiiitial appointment. 4, Leamed counsel appearins for the petitioiiers further submits that this Court, while considermg the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and anotlier in W.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007, by order dated 12.02.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. tfae date ofinitial appointment. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in tlie case ofRam Kumar Sahu and o&ers Versus State Govt. of Clihattisgarh and aaother (supra). However, the State is at liberty to verify the facts of appointment asto vvhether the case of the. petitionens is similar to that of Ifae order dated 12.02.2007 passed by fhis Court in W.P.(S) No. 813 of2007 (supra). 6. In view ofthat, this petition is allowed in the sams terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Annt T,r