^ 1-;: c' w Ittl yiGUCOURT^FC^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Writ Petition (S.V No.3356 of 2008 Petitioners 2. Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. Dawar Singh Thakur.aged 56 years, S/o Shri Milap Singh Thakur, Head Master, Govt. Mlddle School, Jamgao(R) Tahsil Patan District Durg (C.G.) Ghanshyam Prasad Thakur, aged 59 years, S/o Late Shri Shrawan Lat Thakur, Head Master, Boys Primary School. Jamgaon(R) Tahsi! Patan, District Durg (G.G.) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department Minisfry, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Dlrector of Public Instructions, State of Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G^ ; The District Education Officer, Durg (C.Q.) Writ Petition under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petltioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 1 day of July, 2008) With the consent of learnedcounsel appearing for the parties. the matter is heard finally. (2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Deputy Teacheron a fixed pay of Rs.100/- in ttie year 1974. Aftercompletionof probation period, the petitioners were granted regular pay-scale. He furthersubmits that the issue invotved in the case is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay-scale with effectfrom the date of initial appointnnent or after ..> ^ -^- (_. Sopal ^s. completionof probation period. Learned counsel further submits that the issue invotved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur passed in Original Apptication No.2745/1989 (Madiiikant Yadu awi 56 offiiers vs. State of M.P. and others), wherein it was held that similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment. (3) The matter was taken-up to the Hon'bte Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholdingthe decision of the Tribunal in MadhuKant Yadu and 56 ofters vs. State of M.P. andothers (supra). (4) In view 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 petitioners are granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider their cases, if they stand 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 56ottTersvs. State of M.P. and others) (supra) and subsequentlyconfirmed by the order dated 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 ttie foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge t.iiiiuaai':''*'"••,;,«.>»