HIGH COUE£ OF GHHA! !ISGARH: BILASPgR Writ Petition (S) No, $04 of m8 Ravindra Kumar Shanna, Slo. bate Shri ‘ Shankar Prasad Sharma, aged about 56 Petitioner years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Primary Sohooi, N.C.D.C. Korba, Block Korba, Distriot Korba (CG). VSISUS Respondens 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (0G). 2) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribai & Welfare Department, Korba (CG). 3) Block Education omoer, Korba; District' Korba (CG), 4) District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226i227 of the Constitution of indie.) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Sansh K. Agnihotri, J: Present: Shri KunaTDas, oounseifbr the petitioner, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generai with Smt. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16‘“ day ot June, 2008) With consent of teamed counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finaily. 2) Learned counsei appearing, for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 3-7-1 975 (Annexure P11) on‘a fixed pay scaie of Rs.100/— for a period of two years. After completion of two years i probation, the petitioner was granted regular pay scaie. He further submits that the issue invoived in the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scaie with effect from the date of initiai appointment or after compietion of probation period. 3) The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradeéi State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.ANo.2745/69 ( Madhukant Yadu and 56 \. -.’\ V\ l others Vs State of M.P. & omers), wherein it was held that the simiiarky situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scare w.e.f. the date of initiat appointment. “me ‘ matter was taken up to the Hon‘bie Supreme Coun. Theappeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the TeachersIAssistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appointment. 4) in view of the above stated submissions made by learned counsel 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 the petitioner’s case, if he stands on the same footings as per order dated 248—1 992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur, in O;A.No. 2745 of 89 (MadhukantYadu(supra) and subsequentiy'confm'ned by orderdated 3-1 -1 994 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civiiy No. 6892/93 and grant reiief accordingly. 5) lh view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sdl— . Satish K. Agnihom a Judge /