WV q» a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BELA$PUR CHHATTISGARH ’ w.P.(S)No. 10% 12007 PETiTlONER Maheshwar Singh Kaur, S/o. Shri Puna Ram Kaur, aged about 42 years, Upper Division Teacher Govt. idea! Hr. Secondary Schoel ~ Domii, BiOCk - Dondi, Distt.- Durg (0G) VKu. Geeta Gupta D/o. Shri Radhey Krishna Guptay aged about 41 years, Upper Division Teacher, Tribal Weifare Govi‘ Hr. Sec. School - Kusumkasa, Black — Dondi, Disti— Durg (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgrh; Through m The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Triabal Welfare Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur 3. AssistantCommissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Distt. —Durg (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF €HHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(5) No. 1056 of 2007 Pe‘fii’ioriers 2 Maheshwar Singh Knur‘ and ano‘i’her Versus RespwdeniE Sfa‘fe a‘f Chha'ffisgarh and oihers SB: Hon‘bke Mr. JusTice Sa‘fish K‘ Agriihafr'i, J Present: Mr. AS. Rajput, Adyacate for the petifioners. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for- “fhe 5*?a'fe/respomiem's. O R D E R (Passgd an this 26+“ Day of February! 2007) 1. The pefifioners were appoin‘fed in 'i‘he year” 19§3 as Upper Division Teachers on fixa& pay smie of Rs. 1400/-. Af‘fer compie'i'ion 0f ‘rwo year probai’ian, They were gran-fed reguiar pay scaie. 2. Learned counsel appearing “for The pe‘ii‘i’ioner-s submi‘is fhai' The issue invaived in The case is asfo whefhei“, 'i'he pei’i‘fienei‘s are enfii’ien i0 reguiar pay scaie w.e.'f. 'i'he da'i’e of ini'iial nppoini‘men‘i' Dr affer‘ cornpie‘iion 9f proba‘iion period. 3. The issue invoivei herein was considered by 'i'he Madhya ?radesh Sia‘ie Adminisirai’ive Tribunai, jabalpun in O.A. No. 2745/8§ (Madhukan'i Vadu and 56 o'i’hers Vs. 5Ta1’e of MP. <31 oihers), wherein ii' was held Thai The similariy siTuaTed Teachers are enTiTled To reguiar pay scale w.e.f. The daTe of iniTial appoinTmenT. The maTTer‘ was Taken-up To The Hon'ble Supreme CourT in Special Leave PeTiTion (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said peTiTion was dismissed A by me Hon'ble Supreme Cour“? upholding f‘rie decision of 'H'ie Tribunai ‘i'o The efifecf 111a? “the Teachers/Assis+m+ Teachers are ei’ifi'rlee 1'3 reguiar pay Scale from dafe of ini'i'ial appoin‘fmenf. . Learned counsel appearing for 'l'he parfies joinl'ly’ submi‘l' The? 1'his case is squareiy covered by ‘i‘he decision of fhis €oui~+ in W. P. Noi 1890/2003 {Chha‘i'fisgarh Shikchak Sangh (Teacher‘s Associa'fion) vs. S‘i’a’i’e of Chha‘H'isgurh & o‘fher‘s}, which was dispoeed of vide order dafed 6.4.2005 They fur'i’her submi‘f 1'ha‘i' +he quesi'ion of low involved is also The same. . in view of ‘H‘ia'l', rhis pefifion is diseased of in “the some “terms. No g __.s.__sw » . i order as +0 cosl’s. f ‘ l Sd/- J { i i Satish K.Agnihotri v l i i Judge Subbash