INTHEHlGHtWURTOF^UGlMBiiSUREaBl^ CHHATTI^iiRK@;t^;Y5@%^^ v w.p.(sy No. /2007 PETiTIONER 'T^- r-^! trf'' \'€%^ M^^' y.y^ Y? Mariiram Sidar, ?/»Shri Ganjan Singlt" Sidar, aged about 43 years^ Assistant TeaGher, Govt. Hjgh SphQ&li BHykel, Block - Basna,ri ; Distt^ —Mahasamund -{C.Gi,^-','::.:.,';:,V;,',.^ ;,^'.'*1. :'s£> -<^ :<sf". .- ^y RESPONDENT'S VERSUS y StateofCMhattisgarh.Thrbugh- 1'he Secretary PeRartmen^ of Edyeation D.K.S. Bhawan, -Raipul?;(C.G^,:: ^..: :"'ffi::J.;.^ ^ Djrec^or ^iRuBli^^^ Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipyr 3. District Education Qffic^r, Distt.- Mahasamund (G.Q.) ,^4. Block Education Qffieer, Block—Basna, ~ Distf; -Mahasamund (C.G.) ^•__;:_-:,_---.-._._.'._....1. WRITf'ETITlONUNDBRAl^lC 226^0^^^^ ORtlNDIX F0R ^SSU^NiEgtSR^^ DlREeTIONET^.^Qei^lJSTltSEINTHEMAT^^ W6WCOURT OF CHWATHS6ARH AT BU.A»UR W P(S)No 830<rf2007 Ptetitioner AA(min»nSidar lw :s- Versus Reqwndents : Stnte of Chhattisgurhondolhers SB: HorifcteAAr. JusticeSaMshK. <<gmh<rtri. J Present: Mr.Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate forlhe petitioner. ^ Mr. 5atish Supto, Dy. 6ovt. Advocate for the Stdte/respondents. OftDEft 0'assed on this 12ttl Doy of February, 2007) 1. The petitionerwas typointed on28.11.1985 (Armexure P/l) os Assistent Teacher on fixed pay scak of R& 300/-. After cpnipfetion of oneyear probation, he uws grantBd regutar pay scale of Rs. 9'^- 25-1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-1650/-. 2. Leamed counselappearing for the petittoner submits that Ihe issue awotved in -the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regutar poy scale wA.f. -the dute of initialiypomtment or after completion of probation period. 3. The. issue invoh^ed, herein was considered by the Mnchya Prudesh State Admmistrotive Tribunal. Jaba^Hir in O.A. No. 2748^9 (Madhulwnt Yodu dnd56 p1+iers Vs. State of M.P. & olhers), whwem it was held that the similarly situcrted teachers are entitted to regutar pay scate WA.f. the date of initfal appomtment, The matter VMS taken-up to the Hon'bte Siyreme Court'. The oppeal tiws dismiMed by Ihe Won'Ue Si^renw Court uphoiding the deciaon of £• w the Tribunat te •the effect -thot -the Teochers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to reyihr pay scale from dute of mitial oppointnient. 4. Leamed coimsel oppearing for 1he petjtu»ner furlher submits ttet this Court, uAtile considermg the same issue m Syshil Tiwwi & olhers Vs. Stcrte &>vt. of Chho-ttisgorh A others (WJ>. (S) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has gronted regular poy scnle t»A.f. •the dcrte of initial ajqiointment. 5. Leamed counsel cypearing for the parties jofatly siAmitlhatlhis cose is squarely cowred by the decision of •this Gourt in Ihe case ef Sushil Tiwari A o-thers Vs. S+u'te 6ovt. of Chhattisyirh A o'therg (&pra). 6. In viw»of thot, this petition is dlowed in 1he snme terms. Na order astocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge