3 IN THE M.P. g£ATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAI.., BAIPUB BSTCH O.A. APPLICANTS / 2002. ^.--/:./ •-'-/ Dinesh Kumar Hhruw, Son of Sbri Brljlal Dhruv, Aged about 33 yrs., Primary School Kotedi, ELock Kanker, Bistrlct Kanker (C.G.) Dhanraj Tandlya Son of Shrl Brijlal Tandiya Aged about 36 yrse, Middle School Bumall, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Yasbwant Bao Mane Son of Late Sukaji Mane, Aged about 37 yrs., Middle Sehool Ke-watintola, Block Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C*G«) 4. Arjun. Bam Hidko • Son of a-3ri Guman Singh Hldko Aged about 38 yrs^ Primary School Ke'watintola Block - Kanker, Dlstt. Kanker (C.G.) /v^ ?• Dilawar Singh Dbru^ Son of % rl Brljlal iliruw, Aged about 37 yrs., Priroary School Kokdl Block - Kanker, Dlstt. Kanker (C.G.) — VERSUS 1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. THE STATE OF CHHATTISOARH, Through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. THE COMMISSIONER, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. THE COMMISSIONER, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS AP PLICATION UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS_ACTt_198^5 ^7' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINOLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AQNiHOTRU, Petitioners WRIT PETITiON (S.) N0.4541 OF 200S Dinesh Kumar Dhruw and oth©rs versus Respondents : Stete of Madhya Pradesh and others present : Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsei for the petitioners. Ms. Sunite Jain, Panei Lawyer for the Stete of Chhattisgarh/respondents. (Passed on 19th DayofFebruary, 2007) The petitioners were appolnted in January, 1987 (A-1) as Assistant Tsacher on fixed pay of Rs.300/- per month. Ater completlon of one year's probation, the petitioners wer®granted regular pay-scaie ofRs.545-975/-. 2 . Lsarned counsei appearing for the petJtioners submits that the Issue invo!ved in the case js as to whether th©pettioners are entitSed to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or from the date of comptetionof probation period. 3. The issue invoh/ed herein was eonsidered by the Madhya Pradesh Admlnistrative Tribunal, Jabaipur 'm Original Application No.2745 of 1989 (Msdhuhant Yadu and 56 others vs. State ofM.P. and others), whereln It was held that the simiiarly situated teachers are entltSed to regular pay-scaie wlth effect from the date of inltial appointment. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'bie Supreme Court In Speeial Leave Petltion (Civi!) No.6892 of 1993. The said petition was dlsmlssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the TrlbunaJ to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regular pay-scate from the date of Inltial appointment. 4. Learned counset appearing for the petitloners further submlts that this Court, whlle considering the same issue Sn the matter of Sushil Tiwari and other^ vs. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Pstltion (8.) No.5976 of 2006), by order dated 7-11- 2006, has granted regular pay-scale with effect from the date of inltiai appolntment. 5. Learned counsei appearing for the parties jolrrtly submit that the facte and question of iaw involved in the present writ petition are squareiy covered by the decision of this Court in the case of SvsM Tiwari and othQi^ vs. State Govemment of ChhaWsgarti and off?@rs (supra). 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition Ss ailowed in terms of the declsson of this Court in the matter of Sushsl Twari and otksrs vs. State Govemment of Chhattssgarh and others (supra). No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gopal