HI6H COURT QF CHHATtESSARH AT BILASPUR W P (S) Na 3372 of 2008 Petitioner bhani Ram Sidar, son of Shri Chamgr Singh Sidsr, aged csbout 52 years, Upper bivision Teacher, Sovt. Higher Secondory School, Murn, District 8ai9or+i, Chhott'isgarli. Versus ftes|ipnden'ts 1. S+ate <sf Chhattisgorh, Thi'ough The Secre'iary, School Education OepaTrmenT, Ministry, &.K.S. Bhuwon, l^aiDur; Chhuft'isgarh. 2. bistnict Edycation Officer-, Raiganh. Gistrict ftaigoirh,Chhatr!Sg(a'h. 3. Block Education Officer, Block Muni, bistrict Raigprh.Chhatl'isgarh. SB: Mon'bleAAr. JusticeSutish K. Agnihotri. J Shri K. P. 5ahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri '/ashuunt .Singh Thaki.ir. fiepu-ty Adyocate, Senernl fw the respondents; ORALCTt&ER yassed on Ais i Day of July, 200S) 1. Wfth the congent of leamed counsel appearing for the pari'ies, the matter is heard finally. 2.Lfeamed couhsel appear-ing for the petitioner submits —thatthe petitioner was appointed as Assistnnt Teacher in •the year 1980 on fixed pay.of Rs- 1K)/-. After completion of probation period, "the petitioner uins gnsnted regular pay scale.t-le further subinits •that the issue mvoiVec! in the cnse is osto ufhe'ther the pe+itipner is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. -the date of initio! appaintment or after completion of probation period. 3. The isaue invol\ d,herein t^considered bytheMadl'iya Pniclesh State AdininiStrative Tribunal. \Tabatput' ih O.A.No. 2745/89 (Aidhykant Yadu and 56 others Vs. St^ of M.P. & other^, whe^in^i^ that the^ siii'iileu'lv situoted •teMiAers are entitl^ ta I'egufar pay^ »flfc --^ m T- w.e-f. the date of initial appQintment. Tiie matter wos tat<en-up to the Hpn'ble 5Mpr-eme Goupt. The oppeat was dismissed by the Won'bla Sup ine Gour!- upholding +he decision pf the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assjstant Teachers are entitled to peguhr pdy scate fronithedateofinitialtypoin-hnent. 4,'&iviewoftheabovest(rtesubntissionsmo£!eby|eamedcounSelfoF the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e., •rtie petitioner is gran'tBcl liberty to mqke o representation, ifso adyised.+o consider his case, if he stands on •rfie same foatings, as per the order duted 24.8.1992 passed by •the Madhya Pnidesh State Administrative Tribuna!,JobalpuF,inO.A.No.2745of89(MEidhukantyadu)(sypra)an(j subsequently confirmed by the order da-ted 3.1.1994 passed by tfie Hon'bte .SjpremeCourt in 5peGia!LeaVe Petition(Civit)No. 6892/93 and gront relief accordingty. 5. In yiew of ^e foregoihg, the pi^ition •is di^os^^^^ OMier osto costs. ~ : ' • ' ! -——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur' • - . ' . ' ,. ' • f ' ^s*.