^^ [Qv HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR PET!TLQNERS RESPONDENTS .P.fSJNo. 1497 of 2008 1 Dinesh Gautam, S/o Late Shri Vanraj Bhai, Age about 46 years, Assistant Teacher, R/o Bank Coiony, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 2 Tute Ram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Jhadu Ram Sahu Age about 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Prlmary School, Dongitarai, BJock Sa|a, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 State Govt. of Chhattlsgarh, Through: Secretary, Education & Tribai Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 District Education Officer, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Somkant Verma, Counsei forthe petitioners. Shri AIok Bakshi, Government Advocate for ths State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL (07.03.2008) SUNIL K^MAR S'mHA, J. Hearti. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that the issue invojved in the case is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to reguiar pay scaie w.e.f. the date ot' initiai appointment or from the date of compietion ot' probation period. He submits that the issue invoived herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State W.P. (S) No. 1493S/2008 snyna Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), wherein, it was heid that the simifarly sltuated teachers are entitied to reguiar pay scale w.e.f. the date of inltial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon'b!e Supreme Court in Special Leave Petltlon (Civii) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court uphoiding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/ Assistant Teachers are entitied to reguiar pay scate from the date of jnltial appointment. Learned counsei for the petitioners further submits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Ram Kumar Sahu & others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & another (VV.P.(S) No. 813 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initia! appointment. Learned counsei for the parties jointiy submit that thls case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and another (Supra). !n view ofthat, this petition is ailowed in the same terms. However, this order shail be subject to al! verifications made by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge B