HIGH C»URTOF CHHAmSGARH, BILA8PUR W.P. (Si No.7412 of 2007 PBTITIONER Anin Kumar Gunfa, afo I^te Shri Kaahaiya Lal Gupta, ^ed 51 ycars, Assistant Teacher Govemxnent. Middlc School Shankar Nagar, Bilaspur, Bloc.k Bilha, District Bilaspur(CG) RE8PONDBNT8 Versus 1 Stete of Clihattisgarti, Through Secretaiy, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Director, Putolic Instruction Departmcnt Raipur (CG) 3 Assistant Conunissioner Tribal & Welfare Department Bilaspur (CG) 4 District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG) 8 Block Education OfiBcer, Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) 6 Joiut Director, Tneasiuy, Bilaspur (CG) WIUT PICTITIONIJMD'ERARTICLB 226 (W'THBCOIISTITUTIQM OF IKDIA Appearance: Shri K.S.Pawar, Counsel forfhe petitioncr. Shri Sumit Vcrma, Paael I^awyer for the State on advancc copy. ORAL ORDER (13.13.20071 8UHIL KUMAR SIBHA. J Heard, Leamed counsel for fhc petitioTier suhinits that the issue jnvolved iti the case is as to whether the petitioner is entitlerl to regularpay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or fn>m the date of coTnpletion of probation period. He suhmits that fhc issuc involved hereia was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State AdmlnistFative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 otliers Vs. State of M.P. and othcrs), wherein, it was held fliat thc siiniterly sitiiated teachers are entitled to regular pay scafe w.e.f. the date ofmitial appointinent. z WP(S) 7412/2007 The matter was taken up to the Hon'bte Supremc Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/93. The said pctition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreiae Court upholding the dccision of the TnTiunal to the effect that thc Teachers/Assistant Teacbers are entitlcd to regular pay scate from fhe date of initial appointment. Leamed coiinsel for the petitjoner fiirther submits that this Court, wbUe considering the same issue in Rain Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and another (W.P.(!^ No.813 of 2007) by order dated 12.2.2007, has granted regiilar pay scate w.e.f, the date ofimtial appointment. I^camed counsel for thc parties jointly subinits that tliis case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in fhc casc ofRam Kumar Sahu and another (supra). In view ofthat, this pctjtion is allowed in thc same terms. However, this order shall t>e suhject fo all verifications roade by fhe State regarding facts pleadeA in the pctition. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti