PEIITIONER RESPONDENTS g $§§N§QIE gENw‘g BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATIISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s) No. 635i /2oo9 x IN THE HON' Minkefan Pufel, aged abou‘r 49 years, Son of Shri Nanku Ram Pufel, posted as “Upper Division Teacher", af Govt Middie School- Gudeli, Block & Tahsii— Sarangar‘h, Disf’r— Raigurh (C.6.) VERSUS 1. f The Sfafe of ChhaffiSgarh, Through- The Secretary, Departmenf of School Educafion, Manfralaya, Duu Kalyan Singh Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.) gm Districf Education Officer, Disfricf — Raigarh (ca) g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6351 OF 2009 PETITIONER Mihketan Patel Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Roop Naik, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 5‘ day of November, 2009) 1. With the consent of Iearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs.150/— for a period of two years. After completion of two years probation, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short “the SAT”) in O.A.No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others vs. State of MP. & others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that ‘the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scale from date of initial appointment. 4. ln view of the above submissions made by Iearned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e., the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider the petitioner’s case,‘ if the petitioner stand on the same footings as per order passed by the SAT in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 3-1-1994 and grant relief accordingly. 5. ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is diSposed of. . $d] / Gowri ’ Ag“"““m sat-15" K' yidge