m as a. ®s. (B =! O -? o >< v ro 3 g" ft^ ^3 C S. rt- B3 a> 3" 3 O "!? 'fl1 %%,'- 'i..'%.. ^ 0 s^/ 's" \v' " S 3-- s 10zm 70 "i ? e? ^ ^. ^ ^ w.e^ £ft s. I u a I" f ' o m w> c o 0. c < u -a = ro 'a-'~^ g o ••< o •< 3 11 .<?^ wS ua A- ^ '.N^^-:"l;^'?"^^'^E^i;^! ^- ' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW W. P.(S) No. 861 of M07 Petitioner ; Smt. Sunita Sautam 0^ow Kashyq)) Versus Respondents : State of Ghhatti^arh oaid others SB: Hon'bte AAr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for Ihe petitioner. Mr. Satish Supta, Dy. 6ovt. Advocate for the S'tate/respondents. OR&ER 0'assed on Ihis 13th t>ay of February, 2007) 1. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 26,2.89 (Annexure P/l) as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay scnle of Rs. 3(X)/-. After completion of one year probation, she was granted regutar pay scate of Rs. 975-25-1000-30-1210-40-1450-50-1650/-. 2. Learned counsel cppearing for •the petitioner submits that the isaie involved in the eaise is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regubr pay scale w.e.f. -the date of initkil appointment or after comptetion of probation period. 3. The isaie involved, herein was considered by the Modhyu Prade^i State Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu ond 56 others Vs. State of M.P. & others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appomtment. Tlie matter was taken-up to -the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The oppeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect thot the Teoahers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to reguhr pay scale from dnte of initial oppointment. 4. Leamed counsel cppearing for the petitioner further ajbmits that this Court, while considering the same issue in Sushil Tiwcri & others Vs. State ©ovt.of Chhatt-isgarh & others (W.P. (5) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has granted regular pcy scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. 5. Learned counal appearing for the parties jointly submit -that this cxvse. issquarely covered by the decision of this Court in •the wse. of Sudiil Tiwari & bthers Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh & others (Supru). Bablu 6. In view of that, +his petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. ¥- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge