^ J9" H1GH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'yie Shri SatlsH K. Aanihotri. J, Writ Petition (S.l No.3359 of 2008 Pejjitioner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. Rupchand Ram, S/o Budhu Ram, aged about 48 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sagjor, Block Pharsahahar, resjdent of Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) State of Chhattlsgarh, Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Offlcer, Pharsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Article 226/227. ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shrl Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, DeputyGovemment Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 1d day of Juty, 2008$ With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (2) Learned CQunset appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.150/- in e year 1979. After completion of probation period, the petitioner was granted regular pay-scale. He further submits that the issue involved in the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after comptetion of probation period. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by adecision of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribuna!, Jabalpur passed in iiijjiia "c ^- Original Application No.2745/1989 (MaiSiukant Yaditand56othersvs. State of M.P. and others), wherein it was held that similariy situated teachers are entitted to regular pay-scale with efFect from the date of initial appointment. - (3) The matter was taken-up to the 1-lon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholdingthe decision of the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu and 56 others vs. State of M.P. andothers(supra). (4) In wew of the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, i.e., the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider hiscase, ifhe stands on the same footings, as per the order dated 24-08-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56ottiers vs. State of M.P. and attwrs) (supra) and subsequently confirmed bythe orderdated 03-01-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/1993 and grant relief accordingly. (5) In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge