~E- HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K.Adnihotri. J. Petitioners ^w. Resoondents Writ Petition (S.1 No.3352 of 2008 1. Homan Singh Mandavi, aged 48 years, S/6 Shri Thajur-Tam Mandavi, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Tarri (Gurur), Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. KaluRamMeshram,aged47years, S/o Shri Sampat Ram Meshram, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Sec. School, Bhawer Mara, Distt. Dwg (C.G.) 3. AnkaloDas Manikpure,aged 50 years, S/o Shn Bhakeriya Das Manikpure,AssistantTeaeher,Govt. PrimarYSchool,Punari(asa,Doundi l.0hara, Distt.Durg 4. Smt Kamla Verma; aged 46years, W/oShriVinodVerma, l-1ead Mistress, Govt.Micldle School, Seoni, Bolad, Distt. Durg <C.Gj 5. Chandra Kishore Kamde.aged 46 years.S/oLateShriLakhanLal Kanide, AssistantTeacher, Goivt. PriraalySehop|,Jhuranadi, Chhtikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon :.(cM:':;:::^-...:'.,; ..••^^^^ 6. AmrttLalPal,aged46years,S/oShri Shatraghun Ram Pal, tesistant Teacher.Govt.PrimEirySchool, Langhiya TQla, Chhuekhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CB.) 7. Pyare Lal Kutdeep, aged 60 years, S/oShri Jagdeo RaroKuldeep, AssJStantTeacher, Govt. Middle School.Pond, Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 8. DhannuRam Bhaskar, aged 48years, S/o Shri Pesu Ram Bhaskar, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Pond Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) State Govt. of Chhaffisgarh, ThrougK Secretary, Tribunal Weliare' Department and Eclucation Department; D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C^3.) . 2. District Educab'on OfflGer, Durg (C.G.) 3. Distriet Education OfRcer, Rajnandgaon (G.G.) Versus 1. ^S^'^-^TSStaT^ "lif1'i)!l1"lli!;Ii''nil?4;i'[;' •••••rV^sSR'ISX^-l^s'KW•£t'iSl£»'W.:S:'f iS£s!:3Sis:. •..i'.BS^^*.;--. •. -2-— Writ Petition under Articte 226 of tlie ConsUtutfon of India ^w. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, DeputyGovernmentAdvocate forthe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 1st day of July, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (2) Leamed counsel appearing for thepetiUoners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.150/- in ie year 19%), 1981 and 1982. Aftercomptetion of probation period, the petitioners were granted regular pay-scale. He further submits tftat the issue invohred in tte case is as to whether the pet'rtioners are entitted to regvAw pay-scale witheffect from the date of ih'rtial appointment or aftercompletion of probation period. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of the Madhya Pradesh StateAdministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur passed in Original ApplicaSon No.2745/1989 (MsKSiukanf Yadu and 56 others vs. Stete ofM.P. ancfothefs), wherein itwas held that similarly situated teachere are entitted to regular pay- scale with effect from the date of Initiat appointment. (3) The matter was taken-up to ttie Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu and 56 attwrs vs. Stefe of M.P. andolhers (supra). II! •liii' CTl ^ ^a^jL ^^eBKs^aafisesa^i fc&UA ^^@^G^sesskSEaB^ sai i !.'• >. RNiil •w [edo£> u»oWU§V5tqsi s i VPS ;.:,: j •sisoo 01 se japjo ON 'y> pasodsip si uotisad 8t|} 'BuioBsjo^siit 10 MSIA u| (g) •<|Bu!pjoaoBi9!|8Jiu&i6 pue £661./%89'ONQIAIO) uoiissd ^AB8^ leiasds ui vnoo eiusjdns siq.uOH ain Aq psssed ^sst -1,0-eo paiBP wpJo ain Aq pauujuuoa A|iuanbssqns pue (aidns) (sje^o pUB-d'M y>a)BfS 'SA a/stffo gs pue npe^ fUBsinifpew) e96i/9^Z'ON uot(eo!|ddv |eut6yo ui jnd|eqBp'|Bunqui eAiieqsiuitupv ems ysepejd eAypevy sitt ^psssed %6|.-80-frZ PSW JaPJO ein Jad se 's6ui»oo) euues eift uo pueis foift ji 'seseo jiaLB jspisuoa 01 'pssiApe os j! 'uo»e»ussajdeje a)|euj 01 ^jeq!) petuejB SJB s.ieuongad sin '•e-! 'sujje} aiues sifl ui ^o pesodsip si uoiinsd IUM 941 'sajijed 941 jo^ Buuesdde psunoo paujeai Aq speuu suoissiuiqns SAoqe stfi 10 MeiA u| (jy) —s;