HEGH COURT GF CHHATTI5$ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(5) No. 1-485 of 203? Pe‘fi‘i'ioner $afyu Wakash T§wari, 5/9 Shr'i Chandu La! Tiwari, aged abou? 45 yeqrs, AssisfanJr Teacher, Govt Primary Schocl— Parcha, Biock- Baikunthpur, DisTt— Koria (ca) Versus Respondem‘s '. 1. Sfafe of Chha‘l’fisgarh, Thmugh — The Secretary Departmzn'r of Educafion D.K.5. Bhawm, Raiipur (6.6.) 2. Direc‘wr‘ Pubiic Irlsfruc‘l’ion Chha‘Hisgarh 60W. Raipur‘ 3. Disfricf Educaficn Officer, DisTt-Kerea (Baikunfhpur) (ca) SB: Herx'bhz Mr. Jusfice 5af§§h K. Agniha‘fri. J Mr. A.5. Rajpuf, Advoca're for The petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Pane} Lawyer for Sfa're/respandem‘s’ Present GREER (Passed 9n This 14% Day of March, 2007) y... The ise‘rificner‘ was appoin‘red on 15-1-1982 as Assisfcm'r Teacher an fixed pay sca!e 0f Rs. 150/-. Afier compkfion sf mo year's probai’im, he was gram’ed regular pay Sca'e of Rs. 169—300/~. 2. Learned eaut‘use! appearing fsr‘ ‘i'he pefifioner submifs ‘i’ha‘f fhe issue invaiveci in ihe case is as+a whe‘fher, 'H'ie pe'i'ii'ionei‘ is en‘iii’ied i0 regular pay seaie wef. ihe da'fe 9f ini'i'iai appain‘fmen'i at" afier compleiian a‘f probation perioa. ‘ 3. The issue involved, herein was cms§déred by ‘H'Ie Madhya Prade$h Sfa‘fe AdminisTra'five Tribunal, Jabalpur in QA‘ N0. 2145/89 (Madhukcmf VadL: arid 56 ofhew Vs. 5m+e 6f MP. <3; a'i’hers) Mia-air} if was heid “rha‘f fhe similarly sifua'fzd feaéhers are én’t’ii'kd +9 régular pay scaie waf. fhe dufe 6f iné'l‘ia! appom‘i’merlt The mu‘f‘fer was Takewup f0 fhe Hm'bie $upr‘eme Courf in Specigi Leave Peiii'ion (Civil) No. 6892/93. Tha said pefi‘fionwas dismissa& by “Hie Hon'ble Supreme Csurf wholeing 'l‘he decision of fl‘ee Tribunal +6 ‘l’he effecf ii‘m‘l’ iiie Teaehere/Assisian‘i Teachers are enii‘iled i6 regular“ pay sicale from da’i‘e of ini‘fial appoin‘l’me'nl'. 4. Learned counsel appearing for rhe peii‘l'ioner fur'rher submi'rs *fha'l‘ rhis Cour-i, while csnsiéering fhe sume issue iii Amar Sci Ram & oihers Vs. 51'a1’e of Chha'i’lisgarh & nihers (WP‘ (5) No. 4}“?5/ £006) by arder daied 1.9.2006, has gran'l'ed regular pay smie we‘f. fhe dare of ini‘t'ial appsirii’men'i'. 5. Learned counsel appearing fer 'i'lne parlies join'fly submii' ihai This case is squarely covered by ibe decisien of ibis Caurl’ in The case m‘ Amer Sai Ram :3: O‘fhers Vs. 5ia‘i'e m‘ €hhai‘risgsrh & cihers (Supra). t é. In View 0f iha‘i' ibis pe‘ii'i’ion is eispcsed of in fhe same ferms. No _ ..... i Nm craer as +0 cos'is. l Sd/-Agnih0tri l Satish K. Judge l subhash