HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (81 Ko.7387 of 2<X»7 PBTITIONBR RESPONDENTS 1 2 Kameshwar Say Paikaia, age about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Jhapat Say Paikaia Tribal Welfare Primary School Nafkela Block-Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) Versus State Govemincnt of Chbattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Tribal WeU'are Departuient & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, District Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Coininissioner, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) Block Education Officer, BE^icha, District Jashpur (C.G.) Treasuiy, Accounf and Pension, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) WMT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITITTION OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Soinkant Verma, Counsel for the petitioncr. Ms. Simita Jain, Panel Lawyer for fhe State on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (13.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard. Leamed counsel for thc petitioner siibmits fhat fhe issue involved in the case is as to whefher the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. fhe date of uzitial appointinent or from the date of completjon of probation period. He subinits that the issne involved -< ^ r t» ^ WP(S) 7387/2007 herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh Statc Adininistj-ative Tribiinal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. and pfliers), wherem, it was heM fhat the simflarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay sca1e w.c.f. the date of initial appointDn^ent. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Siipreme Court in Special l^eave Petition (Civi^ No.6892/93. The said petition was dismissied hy the Hon'ble Supreine Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that Qus Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entiflcd to regular pay scafe ftom the date of initial appointaient Ijeamed coiinsel fbr tTic petitioTifir furtTier submits that th.is Court, while considering the same issue in Rana Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (W.P.(S) No.813 of 2007) by omler dated 12.2.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointinent. I^eamed counsel for tjie parties jointly submits fhat this case is sqiiarely covered hy the decision of tbis Court in the case of Ram Kuiaar Sahu and anofhcr , (supra). In view ofthat, this petition is allowed m fhe same terms. Howcver, this order shall be subject to all vertfications made by the State regarding facts pteaded in the petition. aw~ Sunil Kumar Siiiha Judge sunita ?.„=- r'"