l.o-0 v^^ ^ y "?§*?'''!'.! "RiBi.^JS m THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.S.No. f B S ^ /2007 PETITIONER •^y'. '^wy \b'.--'if.Y ..-"" ;;?PK.--"' S^ifc ShantaXess, S/oMmo Xess aged about 3^.years, working as L.D.T. Govt. girl Priamary school, Rajput para, (Kudekela), Blo(^-Dharamjaigarh Distt.-Raigarh(C.G.) ^y' sy RESPONDENT: VERSUS J^-^State ofC.G. Through Secretaiy, Dipartment ofSchool Education, MantralayaD.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Asst. Commissioner, Raigarh ^ Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3»-- Commissioner, Raigarh Distt.Raigarh(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPMATE WRITS OF MANDA- MUS AND CERTIORARI ETC, DIRt;CTION/ ORDER OF LDCE :SiwSss^NTUBEM£_L COURT OF CHHATTI tiiRT.tT MU SAT1 S"-if^If- LIT PETITION (S) No. 1381 of2007. Petrtioiier rt, ShaBlaXess- State ofChhatti' Shn Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate tbr the Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State / ^'L /n—.,-./~-s—.-nm -.^^^..-...^.^1,-, ^An^?^ ^r'ssseu on y' ~ GI iviarcn, ^-uu.fj 1. The DetitioEe.r was aonointed in the vear 1 982 as Deoutv' Teacher o.n a fixed na'v' scale of Rs- 169/-. After of three vear tion. she was aranted reeular oav scale ofRs, 169-300/-, 2. Learned counsft! appearing tbr the pe'dtioDer submrts tfaat tSie issye mvojved in the c.ase is asto wliether, the petitioner is entit.led to reeular nav scale w.e.f. the date of initial spnointmCTt or aftsr compietlOB ot' .on Deriod. 3. Tlie issue iiivolved. herein was cons.idered bv fhe Madhva Prade.sb Stete Administrative Tnbunal., Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 fMadhukast Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. f3 v/serew. it was held that the similariv situated teachers ars enti.tled to 3^ regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are eBtitled to regular pay scale from date ofmitial appointment- 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners farther submits fhat this Cou.rt, while considerine the same issue in Amar Sai Ram & others Vs, State of Chhattisgarfi & others (W,P. (S) No. 4725/ 2006) by order dated 1,9,2006, has granted regijlar pay sca.ie w.e.f. the date ofimtial appointment. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that fhis case is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in the cas.e of Amar Sai Ram & others Vs. State ofC.hhattisgarh & others (Supra). 6. In view ofthat, this petition is disposed ofin the same terms. No order as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit t