^?" ^ Petitioner Respondents HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR WritPetitionfSlNo. 753 of 2008 Bhushan Prasad Pandey, S/o. Shri Shatrughan Prasad Pandey, aged about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, Shashkiya Purva Madhyami.k Shaia, Hardi, Block Takhatpur, Distt. Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through - Secrstar/, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) District Education Officer, Bitaspur, Distt. BiSaspur (CG). 3) Block Education Officer, Btock Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstitutSon of india) SB: Hon'ble SVir. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri K.S. Pawar, counsei for the petitioner. Shri AlokBakshi. Govt. Advocate fortheState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th February, 2QQ8) The petitioner was initiaily appointed on 25-1-1982 as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scaie of Rs.150/- on probation for a pericsd of two years. After compietion of probation, the petitioner was granted reguSar pay scateofRs. 169-300/- 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petstioner submits that the issue Involved in the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitied to regular yay scaie with effect from the date of initial appointment or after compietion of probation period. 3) The issue involved, heresn was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrativ®Tribunai, Jabaipur in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others) wherein it was held that the simiiarly Raju 7-- situated teachers are entitied to regular pay scaie with effect from the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up the Hon'ble Supreme Court uphoiding the decision of the Tribunai to the effect that the TeaGhers/^>sistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appomtment. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that this Court whiie considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another In Writ Petition (S) No. 813 of 2007 by order dated 12-2-2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. th©date of initial appointment. 5) Learned counset appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (supra). However, the State is at iiberty to verify the facts of appointment asto whether the case of the petitioners is simiiar to that of the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 813 of 2007 (supra). 6) In view of that this petition is aiSowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge