^ UTff SKT OF tTTIS64RH AT RTS 11 fl 1 UAfc.nW W.,US) No. • 1564 of 2007 O^^A:^^^-. ^CTtTtOfiCf' jOfidents Versus Ku. Ambika$opol, W»Shri L.P. 6opd, Aqed about 50 years, Teocher Primary Schoo! Kavlaihar Block Saronqarh &istt. Dninnnk '.{'. K i^.uiyys'TS .i.^'-^'J »tateof,Chhottisga"h Throuqh;- Secretarv Tribal ievelopment^D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipu" (C.6.) 2. The &irecto", Public instruction, &.K.S. Bhatuan, Raipur (C.®.) ^. 3.. Toint Dir'ector, Public Instr'uction bivision, Raigarh (C.6.) 4. &ist"ict Officer Distt. Ruigarh [C.G.] i. Assistant Commissloher Tr'ibd Deveiopment Distt. Ruigarh [C.6.1 6. Block Education Officer Block SarQngarh Olstt. [c^.1 5R: Unn'l ^f^^f y 3^fi E UP-. Tt's*'t^s S^41t^^ ^ mr. J U3T!Ce 5n ^^1 >T ii'S^ -u Presant; Mr. Sanjay Patel, Adyocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vinuy Pandey, Pane! Lawye" for Stute/t-esponden o (Passed on this 19'" &ay of March, 2007) 1. The petitioner appointed vide order duted 12.01.1987 as Assistant Tsacher (&eputy Teache") on fixed puy of Rs. XO/-. Afte" sv^ s~\sn^ ^lst^yl l^y>?'^h«-sAj.^^ ^."s^ ^,-^ts completion ofone yeat' probation, Ae wos granted reguiap pay scule of d^^n/ .»»anaiuu»a,IBSl!as»*rf-B«a!I 7~. v ^ 2. Leorned eourcel oppea"ing for the petitioner submits that fne issue imofvedin the cose is asto nhether, the petjtioner is entitied to regular aay scale w.e.f. the date of ini+ia! appointment or from the date of completion of probation perjod. 3. T}-,e issue involved, herein wos considered by the Madhya State Administrative Tr-ibunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 274g./89 (Madhukant yadu and 56 others Vs. State of M.P. A others), whereln it was heid that the similarly situated teachers are entitted to regulw poy scde w.e.f. the iste of JnitiaS appointment. Tlie mfftter wos taken-up to the Hon'bte 5upreme Court in Le-ave Petitfon (Civil) . 6892/93. The sald petition was by the Hon'ble Supreme Court utihoidina the decision of the Tribunal to t.he effect thot the TeachsrsMssistant Teachers we entitled to regular pay scde from date of initial appointment. I -^.. a. counse! for thc petitione" further subnits that this Court, whiie consjdering the issue in Sushil Tiwari & athers Vs 6ovt. of Chhattisgorh & othws (W.P. (S) No. 5976 of 2006) by dated 7-11-20)6, has granted regulor pory scale w.e.f. the date of initjaluppolntment. y. L.eorneci counsel fcr the pa-ties jointly submit that this case is squoreiy covered by the decislon of ti-iis Court in the case of Sushi! Tiwari Aothers Vs. State 6Qvt. of Chhattisgat-h & others (Supra). 6. In view of that this petitlon is inthe same terms. No .os Sd/-' ^, Satish K.Agnihotri ..Jydge • :,;; •.. -r-- .^-^'. 'Jlt" -I-^ ~7~~r~