HIGH COUR'l' OF CHHAT'I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition (S) No. 298 of2009 <-,s jageshwar Prasad Be'nra. S/o Late Shri Baburam Behra, aged about 57 years, Teacher, R;'o Village & Post Tei-am Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (CG). 1. Siate of' Chhattisearh throueh Secretai-v. Education Department. DKS Bhawan, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Asstt. Commissioner Tribal Weltare Departmeiit, Distt. Raigarh (CG). 3. District Education Qfficer, Distt. Raigarh (CG). (WR1T PETITION UNDER ,WT1CL£226 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF ENDIA) 'resent : Shfi Somkant Vemia. Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondents. ^^-^^. /P^cc.^^! ^^ •inul.?|rt^T ^-f IP.Tilk-imi-Rfl.Tirnj '?^HQ\ ^A *s^SS;ii(. vs3. i.U tA*aj' vl. A'aSiUA'i&iai'j's AW-?^ With the conseHt ofthe parties, the matter is talcen up for hearmg fmally. I.A. No. 1, appiication for amendmeut in the cause title, is ordered as prayed tor. The petitioner was appomted on 29.11.1973 as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay ofRs. ?00/-. Alter completioa ofprobation period, he was eranted regular pay scale. Leamed coutisel appearing for tlie petitioner submits tliat the issue iavolved in fhe case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitied to reeular oav scaie w.e.f. fhe date initiai appomtment or after completion of probation 2. Tfae issue involved, here.in was considered bv the Madhva Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madiiukatit Yadu and 56 othere Vs. State of' M.P. & others), whereiti it was held that the similariy sitiiated teachers are entitled to reeular pay scale w.e.f. the date of imtial ? g6^^ •a<a appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon'bie Supreme Court. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by th.e HonUe Supreme Court upholding the decision offhe Tribunal to the etFect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to reeular pay scale fi-om date of iaitial appointment. 3. The petitioner has produced a lettei- dated 27.12.2008 (Anuexure P/5) whereln it is stated fhat 8.L.P. has beeii tiled before the Supreme Court against tlie order passed by tiie High Court of Madhya Pradesh in L.P.A. 135/2004. It must be made clear fhat tiie order passed by tbe Hieh Court ol'Madhya Pi-adesh is under challenee will not ef&ct 011 the order ofthi.s couil. 4. In view of tlie above stated submissions ma.de by leamed counsei for the pailies, the writ petition is disposed of in ttie same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation with all the documents m support of his case to the state authorities for verificatioa and grant ofrelief, ifso advised, to consider his case, if he stands on the same fbotiags as per order dated 24.08.1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Adminisb-ative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 2745 of89 Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently continned by order dated 03.01.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 and gi-ant reliefaccordmely. 5. Ia view oftlie foregoine, fhis petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. 5. Certitied copy of tliis order may be issued only after can-\'ing necessary' amendment in the orieinal petition. Ssh; Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge