‘ J r sawi‘gy w r k aga-Jg f‘ (\O 0 0 u/" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P.s No. wé’L 1200 PETITIONER ‘ : Sam“ Ram Negi, S/o. Shri TikeT Ram Negi, aged abouf 38 years, Working as Assistanf Teacher, GOVT. Primary School — Barbaspur, Block Kor'bu, DisT‘i'. - Kor‘ba (C.6.) VER$US RESPONDENTS x 1. Sfm‘e of Chha‘rfisgar‘h Through The Secrefary Depar‘fmen‘f 0f o 6 School Educofion D.K.S. Bhawan, o QT4 6* ‘ , Montmloya Roipur (C.G.) ”9’ ) \ ‘33 2. The Di icT Educo‘rion Officer, / <" é» $¢ Dusri: - Blospur(C.6.) I hf, 3. Assis’ran‘r Commissioner, 0‘3; Tribal Weh‘ore Depari‘men‘r Korba (C.G.) . Block Educa‘rion Officer, Block - Korbo, Korl’alo, Kafghora Disf’r. — Korbo (C63 PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOPR I$$UANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OF MANDMUS AND CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER OF LIKE NTURE ETC: - @ HI§H CGURT OF CHHATTIS$ARH AT BILASPUR W‘ P.(S) No. 1062 of 200? Pe‘ri‘rioner 1 5am Rum Negi Versus Respowerrrs S‘m‘i'e 6f Chha'H'isgarh and aThzrs r SB: Hon'bie Mr. Jus+ice saiish K. Agnihofri, J Present Mr. Ami? K. Sharma, Advocate for The peTiTioner. Ms. Daepaii Pandey, Panel Lawyer for fhe Sfafe/respoviderl?s. .. .1,” G R D E R (Passed on fhis 26“ Day of February, 2007) 1. The pei'i'iioner was appoin'l'ed on 8.07.1993 as Assisl'an'l' Teacher on %ix€d my Sade of Rs. 1200/—. Af‘i’er campie‘tim of fwo yam“ prabai'ion, he was gran'i’ed reguiar‘ pay scaie of Rs. 120G-2040/-. . Learhed counsel appearing for ihe pefi'rioner submiis iha‘i ihe issue involved in The case is GS'fo whefhér, fhe pe‘ri'i'ioner is emi'Hed + 0 regular pay scale we}. 'i'ha dafe 0% ini'fial appoinfmen‘l' or- af‘l‘er' cemple‘i'ion of proba'l'ion period. . The issue ihvalved, herein was corisidered by ihe Madhya Pradesh Sfa‘l’e Admiriisl’m-Hve TribLmal, Jabalpur in 0A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukaio‘f Vaclu and 56 ol'hzrs Vs. Sla’fe of MP. & o'l’hers), whereiii if was held Thaf ’i’he similarly sifuafed Teachers are e’n‘l’i‘l’led ‘i’o regular pay scale w.e.f. 'lhe dale of ini‘l’ial appoinfmenl’. The maf‘fer was lakeo-up f0 fhe Hon'ble supreme Cour? in Special Leave Pe‘i'i'fion (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said pe‘fi'i‘ion was dismissed by ‘fr'ie Hori'bie Supreme Cour? upholdirig The decision of fhe Tribuna! +0 fhe effecf 'i'ha'r Th2 Teachers/Assis-fan‘r Teachers are en‘ri‘Hed To regukn‘ pay smie from da're of ini‘i’iai appoinfmen‘r. 4. Learned coLmSei appearing for 1'he pe'fi‘fioner fur'fher submits fha'l' ‘I’his Cour'i‘, whiie cansidering 'fhe same issue in Hur Pmsad Kurre and ofhers vs. 5+a+e of Chha‘i’fisgarh 6: ofhers (W. P. (5) No. 5191/2006} by order dafed 3.10.2006, has gran-red reguiar‘ pay scaie wef. 'i'he dai'e of ini‘i'iai appoini'men'f. 5. Learned counsel appearing for ‘i'he par'ries joinfiy submi‘l' ‘rha'i' 'i'his Case is squareiy covered by +he decisiou of fhis Cour'l' in fhe case of Her Prasad Kur’r‘e and ofhers vs. S'i'a‘i’e of Chha‘ffisgarh 6i ofher's (Supra). 6. In View of fhaf, fhis pefifion is disposed of i‘n The same farms. No order as fo cosfs. i i Sd/- i Satish K.Agnihotri i Judge Subhpsh \N i