« StSXfl'S-^n:,.,.,. :'.::.::.<1S^:;-.f::^o'^_--:..;'•.•:'. \^.'^ -:••'. .: :.- :'-". . .;.;- .-'.'" '. • ';".: '.:..-' '.-.';'. ;:';:' ;';' • .'// :' •• :" • '.; •\ •', ' •'. ,.,'..••..;••.'..:.. .•' iNTHEHlGHCOURTOFyumCATUREATBlLASP^ GHHATTISGARH ^:^-/ W.P.(S) No. 2007 PETITIONER iS-'S^^ S.E- •,.v^^ MM ^^% ^liiKhan Singh Arya, S/o. Late Shri Sawant Ram Arya, aged afciout 42 years, ^ Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls Primary Sehool, Narratola, Block - D&ndi, Distt. - 'Durg(C.G.yf' ;.,;•--.. •y VERSUS RESPONDENT'S m ^: m v;::^>.te<- ,>;,';!: ,<»: i^ ^ State'ofJCl"iKattisgarh;ThFough The Secretary^ Department of Tribal vye|faFe,iD.K[§i Bhavvan, •Raipur(G.©i)g::::':'l'::;,': :^ ';:;:-::^^^: 2.^ Commissi@nerTribalVVelfare,^ Chhattisgarl-i^ovt. Raipur 3-^ Assistant Commjssioner, Tribal VVelfare, Distt.-Durg(C.<3,) WRIT PETlflQNiyNDERARTICLE2260FTI-IRCONSTlTUTION OF INDIA R3R ISSUANCBS6F%^ DIREC^IC?NE1^SimDC>yuSfl<£EIN%HEM^^ ?l%is^^B' '>? m»<couKroF CHMATFIS&UW ^r KU.ASPUII W.PfStNo 832of2007 Petitioner Likhan Singh Arya Versus Respwidents : Stateof Chhottisgnrhando'thers SB: Hon'bte Mr. JusticeSatish K. ^naiotri. J Presient: Mr. Anil SinghRa^iut, Adwcate for IhepetitiorBr. Mr. Sutish fiupta, t>y. 6ovt. AdvoeatB for •rtr State/nsspondents. OROER 0>assed on Ihis 12 Oay of FebnK>ry,2007) 1. The petitionerwas oppointed on l2.tt.87 (Armexure P/l) ns Assistmt Teacher on fixed pcy scale of fts. 30Q/-. After completkm of one yeur probntion, he wds gnnnted regularpay sctrfe of fts. 978-25- 1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-16SO/-. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for •the petrtioner subnuts 1hat Ihe issiie involved hi •the coise is asto xhether the petitioner is entithEd to regular pay sente w.e.f. Ihe date of initnl O(q»omtment or aft-er compfetion of probation period. 3. The issue mvolved.hereinwcscon.adepedbYlheAtadhyaProidesh Stete Admmistrat'ive Tritoinul, Jaba^ur m O.A. No. 27W/69 (Atodhukont Yadu ond 56 others V& StateofM.P. & o-thera), whepen it was held -that thesftniku-fy siluoted teachers are entitled *o feguku' pay scate w.e.f. -the date of mitial appomtm»>t.The nwftter wos taten-up to Ihe Hon'bfe St^reme Court. The a^aat was dismissed by Ihe HoB'bte Supreme Court- upholding •the deeision of ^^^l^^f! y/ t:*' / ., z; the Tribunal to •tte effect thut the Teachers/Assistont Teachers are entitled to reyilar pay scafe from dote of hitral o^wintment. 4. Leamed counsel qipearing for the petitioner furthw aubmits that •this Court. tirfiileconsidermg the scune isaie m Sushil Twwi & others Vs. Starte ©ovt.ofChhattisgarh & o-thers (WP. (^ Np. 5976 of 2006) by orderdated 7-11-2006, has grunted regutar pcy scale w.e.f. Kiedateof initialoppointment. 5. Leamed counseloppearing for the parties jomtly submit'that Ihis case is squarely cpvered by the decision of •thisCourt m'thecaseof Su^iil Tiwari & olhers Vs. Storte 6ovt. pf ChhBttisgurh & o'thers (Siqira). 6. Inview of 1hnt,'thispetitionisallowed m Ihe same terms. No ordBr as to costs. Sd/- .. . ., SatishK-_ASnalom Judge