MO/W/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JvICATEJRE A? BLA$PE§R CHHA'E'TESGARH State of Chhattisgrh, Through ~ The Secretary Department o? Education/Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, _ E ‘Raipur (C.G.) l Commissioner Tribal Welfare, Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipu r Assistani Commissiener Tribel Welfare, Distb Durg (C. G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Distt. Raipur (CL? ) w_P.(S) No. b5? 12007 PETITIONERS y 1. Krishna Kumar Nage$h, S/ou Shri Sadh Ram Nagesh, aged ahaut Wv 41 years, Assistant E‘eacher Govt. Primary Schoo! - Tengna Kachar, Block — Bilaigarh, Disit. —« Raipur (C.G.) f 2 . Rajkumar Kumar Markandey, S/o. Shri Budharu Markandey aged about 44 years, Assistam Teacher, Tribai Welfare Gavt. Primary Schooi —— Kopedera, Black ~ Dondi, Disir. — 62mg (C-G.) VERSUS g a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDk FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT WRITS DIRECTION ETC. TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER; 2 & 2 ‘ HiéH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ W. P.(5) No, 105'? of 266'? Pei'i'fionei's i Krishm Kumar Nagesh and ano‘mer Versus Respmdem's : Sw'fé 6f Chhaf‘fkgarh aré ofhef's SB: Hon‘ble Mr. J'usfice Sai'ish K. Agriiha‘i'r‘i, J Present: Mr. AS. Rajpuf, Advocafe for The pe‘ritioners. Ms. Beepaii Famiey‘, Pane! Lawyer for S'i’a‘i’efresporadzn'rs. O R D E R (Passed an This 26*“ Day of February, 200.7) 1. The pe#i+iaraei~s were appoin‘fed iH ‘fhe yaafs 1988-89 as Assisfan'f Teacher‘s 071 fixeii pay scale of Rs. 390%. Af'i'er compie‘fiorl of om year pro§a%iovi, she was granw‘ed Feguiai‘ pay Sade of Rs. 975- 16§O/—. 2. Laamed caume! appaaring far +he pe‘i’ifioner's submifs 'fha-i’ ‘fhe isgue immlved in 'ihe case is asi‘o whé‘ilnar‘, +he pe'fi'i‘mner‘s are er‘rri‘ffzd i'o Peguiur- pay smie wzf. The da‘i’e of ini‘fid appaim'men? m" from we da’i’e 6f compie%'i5n of woba’fioi‘i pariea’. 3. The issue iiwaived, herein was coiisidered by *fhe Madhya Pradesh 5%afe Admirwis+ra%iv2 Tribunai, Jabalpur if! 0A. No. 2745/39 (Madhukani’ Vadu and 6 o?‘ners Vs. Sm'fe of MP. & afhars), wherein i'f was heid a? she simiiarly si‘i'ua'i'ed Teacher‘s are enii’i’ied ie r‘eguiar pay caie “Leif. 'fhe da‘fe G‘F irii‘i'iai appainimerii. The mai‘ier was iakeri up i0 'i'he Han'ble Supreme Cour“? in Speciai /\ Subhash Leave Pe‘fii'ion (Civii) No. 6892/93. The said pei’i'i’im‘a was dismissed by fhe He’n‘bk Supreme Couri’ upholding fhe decision of/The Tribunai 1'0 ihe effeci iha‘r 'i'he Teachers/’Assisi'an'f Teachers are ewfified w regular pay seaie from da're of ini'i'iai uppein‘tmen‘i'. Learaed counsel appearing for The pefifioners further submi'rs ‘i’ha‘i’ fiiis Court while considering 'i’he same issue in Sushil Tiwari if: ofners Vs. Siafe Govt of Chharfisgarh (Si ofhers (WP. (5) No. 59?6 of 2006) by order dared 7-11-2006, has granied regular payscole wef. *i'he da'i'e of ini‘fiol oppoinfmenf. Learned counsel appearing for ‘l'he par‘fies join‘l’iy submi'f fno’i' ihis’ case is squarely covered by 'rhe decision of +his Cour'r in fhe case of Sushi! Tiwari 6: ofhers Vs. Sfa‘fe‘6ovf. of Chha‘r‘fisgarh 6c ofhers (supra). In View of fha‘r fhis pefifion is allowed in The same ferms. No order as To cos'i's. l Sd/_ / l " gm i i i i i i i Satish K. Agnihotri t Judge