1-—---;::":^:7^^1'1'"''I ^ $ _.. ,.""-"U/^J?3-.... 1 l^-'-cJ^^'^i 5^ -^' 4 IN THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 5TRA1 IrtAJB BENCH AT RAIPUR rcHrtAmSGARW— ,[.. Original Application No. ..!...?. ST""" / 2~002 L<.-)/'y'<KLL-t-:l-/-'' APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS k SMT BHAGWATI SAHU WIFE OFSHRI P.L. SAHU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVERNMENT GIRLS fflGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANKER DISTRICT KANKER (C.G.) VERSUS 1. SJATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TROUGH THE SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL (MP.) 2. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, 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.) . 5. THE SAHAYAK AYUKT, ADIVASI VIKAS, DISTRICT KANKER, KANKER (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDERSECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1985 — ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR SjNQLE BENCH : HON'Bl.E MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitloner Resp^ondente WRrrPiTmON_(S.)ii0.45640F2005 Smt. Bhagwati Sahu State of Madhya Pradesh and others Present : Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsei for the petittoner. Ms. Sunjte Jain, Panel Lawyerfor tse State of Chhatlisgarh/respondents. QRDER (Passed on 19thDayofFebruary. 2007) The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 28-12-1984 (A-1) as Deputy Teacher on fixed pay of Rs.300/- per month for a period of two years. However, after completion of one year, the petitioner was appointed as ^ssistant Teacher in the pay-scaie of Rs.545-975/- on regutar basis by order dated 10-8-1987 (A-2). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlte that the issue involved In the case is as to whether the petitloner is entitled to rQgular pay-scaie wlth effect from the date of initlal appolntment or from the date of comptetion of probation period. 3. The issue involved herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh Admlnistratlve Tribunal, Jabalpur In Original Appiication MO No.2745 of 1989 (Madhukant Yadu and 56 others vs. State of M.P. and others), whereln it was heid that the similarly situated teachers are entitied to reguiar pay-scale wlth effect from the date of initiaJ appointment. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892 of 1993. The said petition was dlsmissed by the Hon'bie Supreme Court uphojdlng th©decision of the TribunaS to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regutar pay-scale from the date of Initlal appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submlte that this Court, white considering the same issue in ttie matter of Sushll Tiwari and others vs. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and ottiers Wni Petition (S.) No.5976 of 2006), by order dated 7-11- 2006, has granted reguiar pay-scale wlth efFect from the date of iRitial appolntment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the facts and question of !aw involved in the pr®sentwrit petifeion are squarely covered by the decislon of this Court in frie case of Stish'il Tiwari and others vs. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh and others (supra). S. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in the matter of Sushil Tiwari and others vs. State Govemment of Chhatffsgaift andl offte^ (supra). Noorderastocosts. — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gopal