Ramprasad ahu, Slo. Shri Bachcha Ram Sahu. aged about 46 years, Assistant Ther, Gnvernment rimary Schoo Chorhadevari; Block itha, istri Biiaspur (CG). ) ate of Chattisrh, through Secretary, Edcatin Deartment, .K.S. Bhawan, uo p D RG aipur(C). 2) Th Assistant Commissioner, Tribai 8. Welfare partment, laspu (CG. 3) Biock Education Officer, Bia, Distric iiaspur ((3). 4) istrict Edation Office, Biiasr (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitutio of indi.) D uc r pu n e SB: Hon’bl M Saesh K. Agnihotri, . e r. J Pnt sh‘ KiD nseifihtiiier rese; n unaas, couorepeon. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocte Genera ith Srnt. Sunita Jai, Panel Lawyer for the tate ORAL ODE (Passed on 16’“ day o June, 2008} ith consent o ieedcouni appearing fothe partie, the matter is heard frnaiiy. ) Larned counsei aearing for the petitioner subms that the petitner was appoied as Assistant Teacher on 2-9-1 980 (Annexure Pl’i) on a fixed pay scale of Rs.15/— or period of two years. Aiter ompletio of two years probation, the petitioner’was granted regular pay scale. He further submits that . the issue involved in the case is asto whether the petitioner is emitted to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3) \ The issue involved herein was considel‘ied by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur in O.A.No.2745i8§ ( Maohukant Yadu and 56 HIGH COURT OF GHIiATTlSGARH: BIMSPUR Writ Petitiong) No.2aoo «mos Petitioner S eac P l, B Dct Versus 1 St hga Respondents e De Bir ) ih t B 0 a ! w n S. RR f W f amse r' s 2 e pp it io nt 0 f a cn others Vs Stata of M.P. & others), wherein it was had that the simiiariy situated teachers are entmad to regutar pay scab w.e.f‘ the date of initia} appointment. The matter was taken up to the Hon‘bte Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’bte Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effeot that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regutar pay soate from date of ‘ initial appointment. 4) ln view of the above stated submissions made by learned oounsei for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same‘tenns Let, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider the petitioner’s case, if he stands on the same footings as per order dated 24~8~1992 by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A.No. 2745 oi 89 (Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequentiy conmmed by order dated 3-1-1994 passed by the Hon’bie Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Civil} No. 6892/93 and grant relief accordingly. 5) ’ in view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of. No orde; as to costs, Sd/— k Satish K. Agnihotrip Judge a férl. .v ,V ' ”m uec {