> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI3GARH, BILASPUR W.P. ‘3) No.2189(2008 Petitioner Ramavtar Janghd ¥ SI o. Shri Thanwar Ram Janghel Age about 40 yeam, Asst. T€ache13 Govt. Middle School, Bhatgaon, Block— Saza, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versu s RESPONDENTS 1 State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretaxy, Education 8r. Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ' District Education O$cer Bemetara, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) ppearance : Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sum'ta Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State on . advance copy. ORAL ORDER 115.04.20081 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heald. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of mlual appointment or from the date of completion of probation pen'od. He submits that the issue nvolved herein was considered 'by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M‘.P. 85 others), wherein, it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale W.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/ 93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the eh‘ect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are enu'tled to regular pay scale h’om the date of Inmal appoinunent. A i Learned counsel for the peu‘tioner further submits that this Conn, While considen'ug the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu 6a others Vs. State Govt. of Chhatu‘sgarh & another (W.P.(s) No.813 of 2007) by Older dated 12.02.2007, has gmnted mgular pay scale W.e.f. date of m1t1al appointment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that this ‘ case is squarely covered by the-decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and another (Supra). In view of that, this petiu'on is allowed in the same terms. However, this order shall be subject to all verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. <——'—‘-—J— l Sd/— r » \ § Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I l i i”.n w, \ A a