%^y ¥- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7277 of 2007 PETiTiQNER RESPONDENTS 3. 4. Babulal Sahu, S/o Shri Heeralal Sahu, aged about 47 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Gorpar, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Sscretary, Schooi Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Public Insfruction Department, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal and Welfare Department, District Raigarh (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IA Appearance: Shri Anii Mourya, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. QRAL ORDER (10.12.2007) SUNILKUMARSiNHA.J Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue invoh/ed in the case is as to whether the petitioner is enttled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from the date of completion of probation period. He submite that the issue invotved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrath/e Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. State of h/l.P. and others), wherein, it was held that the similarly 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'bie .Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunai to the ^fect that the W.P.(S)No.7277/2007 Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. Learned counsel 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 (W.P.(S) No.813 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has granted regular pay scaie w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sahu and another (supra). In view ofthat, this peh'tion is allowed in the same terms. However, this order shall be subject to allj®nficatonsmade by the State regarding facts pleaded in the petition. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna ^ ^^^^^s^ sas^i