Eb HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wx M5) No. 3493 of zoos Pavi‘l'm Kumar, 5/0 Jagi Ram Bagh, Aged abau'r 38 years, Working as — Assistant Teacher, 60w. Jurnior- Primary Schooi, Gabaud, Biock - Pi‘H'mm, Dis'l'ric‘f- Mahasamund (C6) Resnondems L 5+a+2 9f Chhm'fisgar'h, Thmugh - The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.5. Bhuwon, Raipur, DisTt: Rnipur (ca). 2v The Disfrit'l' Edumfinn Officer, Mahsamund, Dian: Mahmmund— (C.6.). 3. The Director Public Ins'h'ucfion, Rnipur (CE) 4. The Black Educm’ion Officer, Pithora, Dim; Pefi‘tioner Versus 4 Mahasamund C5. SB: Han'bh Mr. Jus‘l'ite 5a1'ish K. Agniho‘h‘i, J Shri Fqwan Kesharwani, Advoaafe for ’r'ne pefi'rionar. ShFi Vashwam Singh Thakur, Depu'l'y Advoanfz 6mm! for fhe respnnden'rs. ORAL ORDER (Paised on fhis 7*“ Day of July, 2008) 1‘ Wi‘fh 1412 consen‘f of learned munsel appearing for 'H1e parties. the ma'H'er is heard finaHy. Learned cam-use! appearing for +he pefi‘Honer submi‘ts 'Hm'!’ ‘Hne pe+i+ianer was appoin'ted as Assis+an+ Teacher vide order dafed 7.3A1991, on probafian for a period of 'H'wee years, m1 fixed pay of Rs. 500/-p.m‘ Affer complefion of proba'l’ion period, +he pe‘l'i‘l'ioner was granfed regular pay scale. He fur'i‘her mbmi‘rs ‘Hm'l’ fhe Esme invoived in +he’ case is os+o whe+her *he pefi'iioner is en'ri‘l'led 1’0 regular pay scale w.e.f. fhe da'l'e of inifial appoin‘hnen‘l or offer compie‘rion of probation period. 3A The issue involved, herein was considered by ‘ihe Madhya Prodesh Sfa'i'e Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 274§/89 (Madhukam' . Vadu and 56 ofhers Vs‘ Sfafe af MP. & o'l'hers), wherein if was held 'Hm‘f 'fhe similarly simnfad +2acl1ers are ami'i'izd +0 reguiar pay scalc we‘f‘ fhe dam of inifiai appoin‘hnent The maffer was 'I'akan-up fa fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by 'rha Han‘bla Supreme Caur‘l’ upholding ‘fhe decisian af We Tribunal +0 'H'Ie affect +hn-I- 1'he Tmchers/Assisfam‘ Teachzr$ are en‘kiflzd 'ra regular pay scale fram 1112 dafe of ini‘l'inl appain‘l’menf. 4. In View'af We above sfa‘l'e submissions made by learned counsel for +he parfies, +he wri-r pefi+ian is disposed of in We same +erms Le, ‘I'he petitioner is growled liber‘i'y 1'o make a mpresen‘ia'fion, if so advised' +o consider his case, if 'he stands an 'I’he same fooi’ings, as per The order da‘i'ed 24.8.1992 passed by ‘H-ie Modhya Pmde§1 Sfofe Adminisfrafive Tribunal, Jabalpur' in 0.A.No. 2745 of 89 (MadhUkan‘I' Yodu) (supra) and subsequently confirmed by ‘i‘l'ie order da'red 3.1.1994 passed by fine Hon'ble Supreme Cour? in Special Leave Pe‘i’i'l'ion (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gran? relief accordingly. 5. In view of 'H'ie foregoing, ihe pe‘l’i'iion is disposed of. No order asfo cosfs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur Sd/—