IéH CGURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILAsFUR W. P15} Ni 1532 af 2667 Pefifévner 1 Ku. 5hudha Tiwari, D/o Yudhifhir Prasad Tiwarit Aged about 52 years, As55s'rem Taacher, Jaiipara PrEmary Schoal sarangarh Black-Surangm-h Sigh“. k‘aigarh [5.5.] Versus Raspandems 1. Shafe ef €h%1m‘1-isgarh ThmLgh:— Sewefmy, Educaficn Deparimem, D.K.5. Bhawafw, Rdpur gas.) 2. The Direcfar‘, Pubiic msfr'ucfEw, D.K;5, Bhawan, Raipur (a6) 3. Jainf Direcmr‘, Pawic InsTr-ucfion Division, Raigarh (G6,) 4. Disfricf Educafiw afficer Disi‘f. §aigavh {C‘§.] 5. Biack Educafian Gfficer' - Biack Surangarh Dis‘rf. Raigarh [6.6.] 58: %€or?'bia Mr. 3us‘rica 5afish K. Agmihwrri, J Present: Mr. 5unjay Pa‘i'ei, Advocé‘i‘e for ‘i‘he petitioner. Mr. Vimy‘ Pandey‘, Panei Lawyer for 5iafe/Paspanéei‘r‘i‘a ORDER (Passed on i'his 16m Day of March, 2007) /i 1. The wi‘ii‘iorxer' was appainied an 28.8.1983 as Assisfcmf Teachzr an fixed pay scaie 9f Rs. 3Q<3/-. Affar campiaiian {if i‘wa year pr’abaiion, sha was gran‘rgd vaguiar‘ pay scaiz af Rs. 9?5-1650/-. 2. Lair-fwd ccuiwsei appearing for ‘i'ha peiii‘iamr submii's fhai ‘i‘he issue ifiveived in fha case is ash: whei‘herl f’ne pefiiicvner' is enfified fa reguim‘ pay scaie wef. fhe dafa 9f ifii‘iiai appaim‘man‘i a? affar’ campiafian m‘ pmbafian periad. . The €351.12 irwcskied, harain was considered by fhe Madhya Pradwh Stafe Admin§§fmfive Tribunal, Jabaipm‘ a'n aA. No. 2,745/89 (M&dhukcmf Yadu cmd 56 cfhew ‘v’s. STa‘fe of MP. & wwers), wherein if was heid fhm‘ fhe simHarly sifua‘l‘ed faachers are enfii‘%ed fa regular- pay $cafe wazi ‘rhe 6a+e 6f ini‘ria! appainfmenf. The ma‘f'l'er- was +akei1-up f0 fhe Hon'ble Supreme Courf in Speciaf Leave Pefifion {€ivi!) Na, 6892/93. The said pafH‘ian was d§smissa6 by fhe Han'ble Supreme Caur? uphaiding i’he . decis’km {if we Tribuna% m fhe effecf Tha‘f The Teachers/Assis’ranf Teachers are anfified ‘fa magmas“ may seaia {mam dafe af ini’ria! appainmenf. . Laarned murxse! appearmg far fhe pei'ifianer' fLir‘fhgr submH's ma? fhis {hurt whik wm§derim The same. §sst§e En Har Pmsad Kurre am! afhavs vs. S?a‘?e m‘ C'rihaf?%sgm~h & afhers {W P. (5) Na. 5191/3006} by order dafed 3.30.2086, has gmm‘eé regukn” pay scaka w.e.f. fhe dcd'e 6f inifirxl awoinfmem. . Lear-33d came! appwrim fgr fhe parfias jainfiy submif thaf fhia case is squwely caver'ed by fhe decisior} af #135 Caur? in ”rhe case cf Hat‘ Pmwd Kurr‘a and ofhers vs. Sfa’re 9f Chha’ffisgarh & éfhzrs (5upra). . In view of Thai Thig péfifim is disposes! cf in ihe same Terms. N9 arder as w caa‘i‘s. Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge Sdl- / Subhash