^7.^1^- INJ2IEHIGILCOURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.PJS.) N0. & M % /2009 PETITIONERS: ^y^7 •^ ^'•' ^' rf'' <f./ </" ^y' 1) Raghuwar Prasad Shriwas S/o Shri La?anan Singh Shriwas, Aged about 48 years, Upper Division Teacher Govtemment Middle School, Labed, BIock / Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) Shiv Prasad Rathore S/o Rameshwar Prasad Rathore Aged .about 48 years, Upper Division Teacher Govterrunent Higher Secondary School, Tumah, Block Kartala, District Korba(C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. ^fft State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Assistant CQmmissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ^ 3. Block Education Officer, Btock Kartala District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 O'P THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORjSSUANCE OP WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTLORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETd Ei' 'r'i •i g('':y v':^ B£ ^s; ^- , H2SiLff>I.IRT OF GHHATTISaARH AT BILASPTIR , . ^^ No. 6478 of2009 PETmONERS : RaAawarRasd Shriwas&another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS . : State ofChhattisgarii& othere. JTOITISTITKM^l^ SB: ia'bteSliriSatish.K.Aenihotri.J. P»Men(;;SBn;I3JtISt^,Aflvocatefc ° S}m^ .S.B!iati^©eputyGo^^ fiarthe State»tespondsnts jSmniE^WiRM.) ^ .' '" ' ' (Passed on W day of Novembet, 2009) ; ^ith the c<» ofleamed eounsel appeanng fcr thc partie&Ae petitiiixi is heard :.finaUv. -i.-.,.. ! -. 1. Leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitionera we»e appo'inted on the post of Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rg. 150/-oa probation. After completion oftheir probatioa perifld, the petitidaera were grairted regular pay seale. Leamed counsel lurther submits that the issue involvrf in Ae ease is asto whether flie petitioaers are entitled to regular pay scale wiA effect fiom the date ofinitial appbintnwnt or after completion ofprAation period. 2. The issue umrived heisin was considered bv the Madhva ftadesh State Adxninisttative TribunaL labalpw yor shori "the SAT") ta O.A.Ntt.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu emd 56 others vs. State ofM.P. i& othefs), wbeiwn it'wastwU <hat the sunUarly situated teachers are entitled to reyilar pay sca.le w.e.f. the date ^ ofinitial appointment. The natter was taken up to the Sqireme Caurt. Th»ap ^'•j-, • • :;-—:'.: a^-: •' '. •1. : . .- • ' •:;" ~ - • • ~ ; 1::. .- - . ..': . 1- "^ • 7-;: S' was dismissed by flie Supreme Court, upholding flie deoision ofcttie 'Eribuaal te the eftect that the Teaeheis/Assistant Teachers are entitled to nsmlar pav seale fi-om date ofmitial appointment. 3. Inyiewoftheaboye8ubinisBionsmadebyIeamedeoangdfnrtfaeiia«tiM;tl writ ,,petition is disposed ofia the same tennsi.e.,fhe petitiiaera are gonted Mberty to aake a representatioiL ifso advised, to eaasider fee prtitienera';casefln.itBQwn merit and perspective, iffhe petitionacs stand oa the same feotings as per arder passed by tfie SAT vaMadhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequeitfly eoirfiraied by Ihe Supreme Court ,in Specia! Lesvs Petition (Civil) No. 689203 t>y order dated 3-1-1994 and grant reliefaccoirfingly. 4.' InviewofforBgoiag,thewritpetitiQnisdi8p08edof. 1 SatishK.Agnih"trl ,1 Judge