HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISéARH AT BILASPUR 35L P,(s\ No, 3492 guns Pefifianzr Leladhar Chakradbari, 5/0 Himanchal Chakmdhari, Aged about 36 wars, Working as - Assisfant Teacher, Govt Girt's Primary 5chool, Suinam, Bhck - Pi'rhom,‘ Disfricf- Mdmsamund (6.6.) ‘ ' Versus . Respandenfs 1. 511112 of Chha'ffisgnrh, Through - The Secre‘rary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhuwan, Raipur, Distt: Raipur (C.6.). The Dimcfar Public Insfrucfion, Qaipur ((25,) 2. The Dié'h‘icf Edumfion Officer, Mahasnmund, Dism: Mahasumund- ($6.). 9° 4. The Block Educafion Officer, Pi‘mom, Dim; Mahasamtmd 6.6. , ‘ 53: Han'hse Mn Jusm swish K. Agmmm', J Shri Fawan Kgsharwani, Advoca‘i‘e for fhe pe'ritioner'. Shi'i Vashwan+ Singh Thakur, Depufy Advacgfe Ganyzml for ‘fha responden-rs. ORAL ORDER (Passed on This T“ Day of Juty, 2008) 1. Wifh H12 canszn-r of harmd counsel appearing for fhz haw; *he ma-Hzr is heard finally. almmzd caunsal appearing for fhz pal-richer submifs +l1a+ ‘l'ha‘ paflfianzr was appointed as Assis'ian-r Teacher Vida arder daiad 13.3.1995, on proba‘l'ian far a perioa of lhrza years, on fixad pay of Rs. EGG/‘pm. Afler complz'l'ion of pmbalion period, 'lhe pe'l'i'l'ioner was granfed regular pay scala. He further submi'l's +l1a+ fhe km? involved in H12 case is asro whe‘iher 14w pe+i+ianer is an-ri'rled +0 ragular pay scale waf. 'lhe dafe of ini‘l'ial appain'l-mzn‘l' or after complz‘l'ian of proba‘l'ionl pariad. x¥\\¥ @D é . The issue involved, herein was cansidered by we Ma&1ya Pmdesh 5mm Adminisi'm'Hvz Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. Na. 2745/89 (Madhukan-r Yadu and 56 o‘fhers Vs. 5mm of MP. & what's), wherein i+ was held +ha1' 'H12 simiiarly sihmfed wankers are zn'l’i‘Hed +0 regular pay scale waf. fhe date 6f inf-rial appain‘l'ment Tha maf‘ler was fakan-up *a flue Han‘ble Supreme Canr'h The appeal was dismissed by fhe Hon’ble Supreme Caur1' upholding 'l'he decision of 'l’he Tribunal 1’o fhe effecl' 'rha+ +he Teachers/Assisfon-l Teachers are enl-Hleo 1'0 vegulor pay scale from 'l’he dofe of ini'l'inl appoim'menf. . In view of +l1e above sfol'e submissions made by‘leamed munsel for ‘H‘ie porfies, ‘I'he wrif pe‘fi'rion is disposed of in fl‘e some lerms i.e., ihe pe+i+ioner is growled liberty lo make n represen'ra'l'ion, if so advised, +o consider his ease, if he s‘l’ands on the some footings, as per fhe'order da-l-ed 24.8.1992 passed by +he' Madhya Pmdesl'i Sfa'i'e Adminisfmfive Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A.No. 2745 of 89 (Madhukanf Yadu) (supra) and subsequen'lly confirmed by'fhe order da'I'ed 3.1.1994 pas$d by flue Hon'ble Supreme Cour? in Special Leave Pe-I'i‘l'ion (Civil) No. 6892/93 and granl' relief acaordingly. . In view of ‘l’l'le foregoing, fhe pe‘l'i'i'ian is di$osed of. No order as'io cosfs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur " " sw- ‘jfVal’