HEQH C(EUiiT (3F £HHA”?T};§§A§¥H A? $ILA$§§UR singie Bencéq : Hm‘bie $hr§ f§u§35§ ama:- fSmha, ST. K Q) Wri‘? ?e‘i‘i1’§on Naé$85 a? 20G? $aiod, B§$h~ic+ - Burg (CG) WW? Pafifien un§er Arficie 22f) of; ‘i'iqe Cons‘riw'rion of Inéio Frasem ‘. Shri Rakes?! An'fhonv, counsel for the pai‘rionar. fu‘xg Suni'i'a 5am, Fonei iawyer- for fhe S'i'oi'e, $§AKL GREEE? wmo {?assad ow? 35"“ Noar, 266?) Heard. Learned counsei {‘or- ‘ma pafi'rioner submi'rs fhm‘ $he issue invoived in fine case is as To whefiiqer fhe pe‘riw‘ioner is 2n‘riTied 1'0 reguicar pay scaie wef. 'ir%1e d’u‘l‘a of ini‘h’ai oppom‘rmen’f or from W‘Wx Mom Fa?i?§anar Ku.5ha§1is+a Ahgum Aii, Aged abau‘? 39 year's, Bio Shri Sayyad Asgar aEi, Ocupafion Teacher, (—Eovernmenf Middie Schooi, {J’mrcha CsHiery, Tehsii Eaikunfpur, DEsTric? - Karia {5% "yiarsag §agsa91¢an?s 1. Sfm‘g of Chha?f%§gm~h, Through : The SEcr'eTry, Gapar‘fmenf of ‘PLabEc EnSWuc‘ricnS, (5c}29s% Er§ucafion) Man'rméay, DKS Ehnwarz, Fmipur {C§) 2. Direcfor; Direcfomi'e of Pub§ic Er:s?r‘uc"rions, 6%haffisgarh Raipur (rm u‘?’ The Disfrim“ Educa'rion Q‘ficer, Rfm’ic Ensfruci’ions Educcvi'ion, D'isfric? - Burg (Cg') 4. ‘§‘%-’§E Eish‘icT Educa?icn Officer, Disfricf - Kerk! (56} 5 The glock Educa‘i‘ion Officw, fhe da‘i’e of compée‘rion of proba?ion period. He submi’rs That The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pmciesh 51mg Adminisfm‘iive Tribunai: Jabaipur in O.A. No.2745/$9 {Madhukam' Ycdu aw ‘éé lef‘hers Vs. Smfe of MP. {Q Otaers}, wherein, i? was haid ‘i‘inc? 'E'ha simiiariy si'i‘uamd' feacher-s are en‘ii'ried To reguiar pay scaie w.a.f. fhe daie of ini‘i’ial appoimmenf. We maifer was Taken up 1’0 The Hcn'biz Supreme Caur? in Speciai Leave Pe‘i‘i'ricn (Civil) No. 6392/93. The said geiifion was ciismissw by The Hon’bia Siipr'eme Cour? upheiding ‘i'he decision of ?ha Tribumi 1'0 fhe eé‘faci‘ ?ha? “the Tetachersffissis?an'r Teaciqers are eniiiied To re,§ uia‘r Dav . . smie from fhe dafg of ini‘riai oppoia'Man‘r. Learned couasei for ?'ha pe‘rifioner fur?hzr submii's fha'r fi’iis Cour‘i', white. considering ‘i’he some issue in Rom Kumar' Sohu & Oihers Vs. Siam @ovf. of Ci'iiaa‘r‘risgorh & one'iher (W.§’.(5) No. 813 of 2907’) by orcier oo'red 12.2.2Q0?, has grom‘ed reguior pay scaie wef. f‘ne time of ini'rioi apeoini'menf. Learned counsei i‘or The parties goin‘riy submi? ifnm‘ ‘r‘nis case is squareiy covereci by Tine decision of {his Cour? in fne case of Ram Kumor Sonu ond' anoi'ner (Supra). In View of fha’r, fins pefi‘iion is aiiowed in nae some Terms. However; f‘nis order sE—qoii be subjec? To oi! verifico'fions mode by she 5mm regarding foci‘s piead'ed in iiae pei'ii’i'on. J_: i Sd/— 1 Sunil Kumar Sinka Judge padma