C^ 1^^ ft ci^ 1^7 PETTTIONER .rf^^-/ ..^y^ •^•^ ^^•"..^- ^^-•" RESPON5ENTS 'y^'^ ^' ^' .^v years, Working as Teacher, 6ovt. Primary Nayapara (Dongaama) sa (C.G.} / 1. / Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2. The District Education Officer, ^ 3. Assistant Commissioner. / ^ WRIT PETCTEON NATURE OF MAN&AMUS. CERTIORARI OF WRIT 0£LIKE NATURE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. 994 of 20)7 Petitioner t>il Prasad Uroon Versus Respondents : State of ChhatHsgarh and others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Amit ^iarma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Pandey, PJ-. for the reqiondents/State. OR DER 0'assed on 21st Day of February, 2007) 1. The petitioner vws appointed vide order dated 23/3/l987 (P/l) as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay scale of Rs. 300/-. After completion of one year probation, he wias granted regular pay scale. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for -the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is asto vuhether, the petitioner is entitled to regular puy scale w.e.f. the date of mitial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was considered by the AAadhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jdbalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of MP. A others), wAierein it was held that the similou-ly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by -the Hon'bte Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to tiie effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitiorar further aibmits that this Court, while considering Ihe same issue in 5uriiit Tiwnri & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhatt-i^arh & others (WP. (5) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has granted regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initktl oppointment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for -the part'ies jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh & others (Si^ira). Yogesh 6. In view of that this petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge