»y SIK'^' 'V-KL'';;'-•' <7^1^>2 r.p. Ctij-^i PETITIONERS ^mt. Urmila ^- Lakra, VWo' Shri /---" >^-'' ^ ^°^y ^^'..-" ^^••'"" ..-•''.'?y-'-'''~\<'..-T ..-•\<A<^-/).y ^- oy.--'~ Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) .^- 1. StateofChhattisgrh, Through nent of 'r. n, ^.v-!., 2 3,,.- District Education Officer, 4, Assistant Commissioner Tribal / DIRECTION ETC. TO DO JUSTICE INTI 5iy'!^?^ The petitioner above named most respectfully submits as under ••»<ftXS WSH COUKT OF GWMTTIS&WH AT BTLASPW W. P./SlNo. 920<rf2Q@ Retitioner Versus Smt. Urmila Urfcro State of Oihatl-i^arh <and oKwrs SB: Hon'ble A^r. Justfee Satfsh K. Ayrihotrf, J Present: ttr. A.& Ra^)ut, Advooute for ihe petitiwier. Ms. Sunitn Jain, Panel L.cn»yerfor the State/reapondents. OR&ER (Passed on this 19* Oay of Febnwry, 2007) 1. The petitwner vws appointed on 29.6.1993 qs Assistnnt Teacher on fixed poy scale of Rs. lOTO/-. After completion of 1»w year probfftion, he »wsgrented regulcB'poy scnte of Rs. 1200-2040/-. 2. Lecrnedcounselappearingfor'thepe'Mtionei'a.ifami^s'thatltieiasue inyolved "in -the ccse is asto whelher, 1+ie petitioner is entitted to regutar pay aMte WA.f. •the dcrte of mitinl oppo«rtment or after comptetfon of protxrtipn period. 3. The isaue mvolved, herein.wns conadered by'the Madhya Pradeah Stute Admhistrative Tribunal, Jdaalpur in OA. No. 274&%9 (Atodhukant Yadu ond 86 others Vs. Sftrte of <U*. A olhers). »»heremit wus held -that Ihe simUarly srhiated teuchers ere entitfed to regular pcy scate wx.f. Ihe tkite of hititd Bppointinait. The matter vws taken-iy to Ihe Hon'ble Supreme Courl'in 5pecial Lewe Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The aaid petitton wasdismjssed 3^) /p by •the Hon ble Siyr'eme Court upholding Ihe dedsion of tte Tribunat to Ihs effect •that Ihe Teachers/Assistant Teachers <re aititled to regukn* pay scale from date of initkil appointmwrt. 4. Leorned counselappea'ing for the petitjoner further sybniits •thort' thisCourt, whiteconsidering thesamc isaie in HdB'Prasad (Sum and o-thers vs. State of Chhattisgarh & o-thera {W. P. (^ No. 5191/2006} by order dated 3.102006, has gnmted re9ul<r poy scate w<.f. the date of mitial cppohThnent. 5. Leamed counsel (ypeairHig for •the parties jointly arismh' thcrt' this case is squarely covered by the decisjon of •Htis Cburl' in thecase of Har Prasod Kurre ond o-ttwrs vs. Stnte of ChhatNsgerh & others (Supra). 6. In view of Ihat, •this petitten is disposcd of in -tte scune terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SubhiBh