8/ " ) 4 ‘ ~. "’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.1S 2 NO. GL6€> /2008 PETITIONERS : 1'. Asha Ram Kurre S/o‘Pahar Ram aged about 47 Yr. (Teacher ) R/o Village Post Nagattha Tah- Bilaigarh District— Raipur (C.G.‘): ‘ 2. Bharat Ram Chandra TS/o Aghori Lal Chandra aged about 45 years Occupation- (AsstTeacher) R/o Village Post ~ Salonikala Tah— Bilaigarh District- Raipur (CG). g‘ map 3‘. Block Education Officer Block Bilaigarh / Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2,26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. I VERSUS V RESHONDENTS :. ‘:T.The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : macENEDWY :ecretary , Education & Tribal I ?~‘m 0% I epartment D.K.S. Bhawan Ralpur (C.G.) ‘ .Wainlwua 2. District- Education Officer Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ir o T—wmat w ~P‘(s) éébsb mm wwm (W) mmm SE: Hon’me §hri Manimira .{Wohan Shrivastava, J ii§uG7n2$1 3. heel for tile petitionerS. 3r the State] respondents. W200 g WWW mmm WWW#%¢3W $Wm S‘mt Renu Kachar, sou Ma $unm3am, P‘L‘ fa‘ H The p$titionars were ap fixed pay 0f RS.120(§/-. M1 probatiar; paried, they were g counSel appearing 1’01“ th€ p< invelved m ’fhta case i$ as entiflad to regular pay scala appomtment or after complet On the other hand, leaxf that though the petitionm‘s and praying for directions is Sahu Vs. State of Chhatfisg and necessary facts entitle benefit on the ground of 1i pleaded in the petition, the Claimed Similar benefit. Thq proper phadings of relevant i1 ‘ The issue invokred, here Pradesh State Administf O’A.No.2745/89 (Madhnkant \ penned ae Aeeietant ’E‘eachere on ter compEe’tion 0?? two years of ranteti regutar pay Scaie. Learned atltionei‘s submite that the asue to whether the petitioners are ‘kvith effect from the date of initial ion of probation period. V t led counsel for the State S11 bmits are chiming parity of treatment. sued in the case of Miiwant Ram arh, Annexure 13/4 and relevant :1 for the petitionere to search arity have not been speeificaiiy trefore, the petitioners have not ty are required to come out with iots. :in was coneidered by the Madhya ative ’I‘ribunai, Jaiiajpur in Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of , newiania—Fsmo—z/zm 1—1,5o,ooo. WW m 200 ma?!m (Wu) mmm WWW v- L, WWW M’P. & others}, wherein it was teachers are entitled to reguL The ma Supreme Court in Speciai Le; The said petitien was dismissa upholding the decision of the Teachers/ Assistant Teachers e from the ciate of initial appoinui mWW WWR é7$mm initia} appeintment. held that the simiiarly situated 3r pay scaje wef. the date of tter was taken up to Honrble we Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. #1 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Tribunal to the effect that the re ehiiiiieé m -egmm pay scaie nent. 11: View of the above stajd submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the w it petition is disposed. of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner are granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider their case, if they stand on the same footings a per order dated 243.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Ad inistrative Tribunal Jabalpurg in O.A.No.2745 of 89 M dhukant Yadu (Supra) and subsequently confirmed by or er dated 03’01. 1994 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ' 160.68g2193 and grant. relief a ordingly. ndra Mohan Shrivastava / V ,i/ Mani Special Leave Petition (Civit) WSdI- Judgg