HIGH COURT OF cHHATTl$GARH: BllASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2&2 of 2008 Petitioner Ravi Ram Choudhary, Sla. Stuki Nirakar 'Choudhary, aged about 52 years, Assistant Teacher, Gavernment Primary Schoah Padigaon, Biock Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State 6f Chhattisgarh, through the Searetary, Educatian Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (0G). 3) Biock Education Ofiicer, Tamnar; District Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 2261227 of the Constitution of india.) SB: Hon’bte Mr. Sau'sh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anil Mourya, counselforthe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, DeputyAdvooate Genera! with smt. r Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL OaDER (Passed on 16‘” day ofJune, 2008) With consent of iearned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter s i heard finaily. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1973 on a fixed pay scaie of RaniDDIf for a period of two years. Aiter compietion of two years probation, the petitioner was granted reguiar pay scaie. He further submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scaie with effect from the date of initiai appointment or alter completion of probation period. 3) The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in G.A.No.2745189 ( Madhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs State of MP. & others), wherein it was heid that the similariy situated t te/aohers/are entitled to regular pay soaie w.e.f. the date of initiai appointment The matter was taken up to the Hon’ple Suprema Court. The appeal was dismissed u] the Hon’bte Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribune! ta the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay scate from date of initiai appointment. 4) ‘ in view of the above stated submissions made by teamed counsei for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e., the petitioner is granted iiberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider the petitioner’s case, if he stands on the same footings as per order dated 24-8-1 992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur, in O.A.No. 2745 of 89 (Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently coniirmed by order dated 3-1-1994 passed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Speciai Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6392193 and grant reiief accordingly. 5) in view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge Raju