^ HI©Ht^URT QF CTIHATTISGARH^BILASPUR W.P. (81 Mo.7394 of 2007 PE^nTIONER Rharat I-«il Rathore, s/o Shri Gula Ram Rafhore, Aged 54 years, Assistant Teaclier, Goverament Priauuy School, TeUkot, Btock Kharsia, District Ra^arh(CG) RESPOMDENTS Versus 1 State of Cbhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Dircctor, Piiblic Instruction Departaient Raipui^CG) 3 Assistant Coinnussioner Tribal & Welfere Department, District Raigarh(CG) 4 Blocte Ediication Officer, Kharsia, District Raigarh(CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 236 OF THE COVISTirunOK OFISDIA. Appearance: Sbri Anil Mourya, Counsel for the petjtioner. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the Statc on advance copy. ORALORDER (13.12.2007} 8UHIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard. I^eamed counsel for the petitioner siibmits that tlie issue involved ia the casc is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regiilar pay scale w.e.f. thc date ofinitial appointment or fnom the date of completion of pTobation period. Hc snbinita that the issiie involved herein was considen-d by the Madhya Pi'adesh State Adininistrative Tn'bzmal, Jabalpur m O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu anrt 56 otliers Vs. Sfate of M.P. and others), whereia, it was hcld that the similarly sitiiated teachers are eiititled to n-gular pay scate w.e.f. thc date of initial appointment. The inatter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreine Cmirt in Spccial Leave Petition (Civi^ No.fi892/93. Thc aaid petition was disinissed -by the Hon'bte Supreine Court upholding the decision of thc WP(S) 7394/2007 sunita Tribunal to the efFect fhat the Teacheni/Assistant Teachers are entitied to regiilar pay scate from the date ofinitial appointment. I-^-amed coiuisel for the petitioner fijrtlicr suhmits that this Court, while considering the saroe issue in Ram Kumar Saliu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarli and another (W.P.(S) No.8T3 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has graated regular pay scale w.e.f. the date ofmitial appointment. Uamed counsel for tTic part-ies jouitly submits that this casc is squarely covered by the decision of this Coiirt in the case ofRani Kuinar Sahii and another (supra). Inview ofthat, this petition is allowed in the same terms. However, fhis orier sball bc subject to a11 vcrifications niade by the State regariing facts pteaded in the pefition. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siisha Judge ^:-^ J^ i