HIGH CQURT OP CHHATTISGAKH, BjtLASPUR Petxtioners Respondents y.P. (Sl No. 6595 of 2007 1 Ratanu Lal Verma, Aged 38 years, S/o Late Shri Ranueshar Ram, Assistaat Teacher, Primary School, Gataparkala, Khaiiagarh District Rajnandgaon (C.Q.) 2 Radhe Shyatu Sahu, Aged 47 years, S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Sahu, Assistaat Teacher, Govt. Pruaary School, Khapri Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) Vcrsus 1 State Govt of Chliattisgarh Through:- Secre-taiy, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bharoau, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Distnct Education Officer, Dhamtari(C.G.) 3 District Education Officer, Rajaaadgaon (C.G.) WMTPBT!T!ONUNDBRARTtCLB2260ELTJIE CON8TITUTION OF INJDJA Appearaace: Sbri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Singh, Paael Lawyer for the State on advance copy. (31.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J Heard. Leacned counsel for fhe petttioners subraits that fhe issue involved in the case is as to whefher the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appoiutment or from fhe date of completion. of probation period. He subiuits that the issue iiivolved herein was considered by fhe Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribimal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukaat Yadu aad 56 others Vs. State of M.P. aad ofhers), whereia, it was held that the sJTnilarly situated teachers are entifled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of mitial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hoa'ble Supreme Court m Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said ^.^•;-^.^ vatti ^ W.P.(S)No. 6595/2007 petition was disniissed by fhe Hon'ble Supreiue Court upbolding the decision of fhe Tribiuial to the effcct that the Teachers/Assistaat Teachers are entifled to regular pay scale from the date of mitial appoi&taient. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioners furfher submits fhat tbls Court, whUe considermg the same issue in Rain Kum.ar Saliu aad others Vs. State Govt. of Cbliattisgarh and aaotlier (W.P.(S) No.813 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of iriitial appouitruent. Leamed counsel for fhe parties jouifly subndts that fhis case is squarely covered by fbe decision of this Coiirt ia fhe case of Rain Kum.ar Sahu aad aaother (supra). In view of fhat, this petition is aUowed io. the saoie terms. However, fhis order sbatl be subject to aU verifications made by ftie State regardiag facts pleaded ia the petition. Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge ^-