N, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.($) No. 2920 of 2008 Pe’ri’rioner Chakradhar Choudhar-i, Age abou’r 43 year, AS‘H. Teacher, 5/0 Shri ShobnaTh Choudhar‘i, Govt. Primary $chool Gadakafa, Block - Kunkuri, Dis’r’r. - Jashpur (6.6.) Versus 1. Sfa‘re Govt. of ChhaT‘risgar‘h, Through Secre‘rary Educafion Department D.K.$. Bhawan, Disf’r,-Raipur (C.G.) 2. Asf’r‘. Commissioner, Trible welfare Depar‘rmenf, DisH.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Kunkuri, Dis’r’r. - Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Treasury, Accoum‘ & Penssion, Jashpur, Dis’r’r: Jashpur (C.G.) Responden’rs SB: Hon'ble Mr. Jus’rice Satish K. Agnihofri, J Shri Somkan‘r Verma, Advocafe for ihe pefi‘iioner. Miss Sunifa Jain, Panel Lawyer for the responden’rs. , ORAL ORDER (Passed on ‘rhis 17”‘ Day of June, 2008)‘ 1. Wi’rh The consen‘i' of learned counsel appearing for The parfies,"rhe maffer is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for fhe pefifioner Submi’rs ’rhaf The pefifioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher in the year 1982 on fixed pay scale of Rs. 150/—. After completion of probation period, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale. He further submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or after / completion of probation period. ‘\ a». .A..” 2. . gfef.,’ 22'; 3. The issue involved, herein was Considered’by fhe Madhya Pradesh Sfa‘re Adminis’rr-cn‘ive Tribunai,'Jabaipur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukanf Vadu and 56 ofhers Vs. Siafe of MP. & others), wherein if was held ‘rha‘t fhe similariy sifuafed Teachers are enfifled To regular pay scale w.e.f. The dale of iniTial appoinfmen‘i. The malfer was faken-up fo the Hon'ble Supreme Court The appeal was dismissed by The Hon'ble Supreme Courf upholding ’rhe decision of fhe Tribunal to fhe effecf ihaf ihe Teachers/Assisi‘am‘ Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. 4. In view of the above state submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the Same terms i.e., the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider his caSe, if he stands on the same footings, as per the order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A.No. 2745 of 89 (Madhukant Yadu) (supra) and subSequently confirmed by the order dated 3.1.1994 passed'by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and e grant relief accordingly. 5. In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order asto ‘/u costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur f44» . ,ry er N