®Si'»&siLiCi.i'Sii^uf ap^}^ G9 f^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUOBCATURE AT '. P. (S) No. PETmONER RESPONbENTS ^^/ '"T-'.A^ /^ .^' ^•t ^l.N^ 0.^' aged about 40 as Assistant Primary School (C.6.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through E 2. The District Education Officer, 3. Assistant Commissioner, Korba (C.6.) 4. Block Education ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2; ^ffn> y^v- TE A.E NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI 01 WRIT OF-LIKE NATURE The petitioner most humbly begs to submit as under;- HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR W. P.fSlNo. 996 of 20)7 Petitioner fityoinand Prasad Dubey Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh and others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. beepali Pandey, P.L for the re^)ondents/State. OR DER (Passed on 21st Day of February, 2007) 1. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21/6/1986 (P/l) as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay scale of Rs. 3(X)/-. After completion of one year probatron, he was granted regular pay scale. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner aibmits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial oippointment or from the date of completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Atedhukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Stoite of M.P. & others), wherein it was held that the similarly situated teachers are entitled to regutor pay scale w^.f. the date of initial appointment. The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Specul Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93. The said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court- upholding the r decision of the Tribunal to -Hie effect -that the Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitled to regukir pay scale from date of initial appointment. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that -this Court-, while considering the same isaie in Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State 6ovt. of Chhatti^ar+i & others (WP. (S) No. 5976 of 2006) by order dated 7-11-2006, has granted regukir pay scale w.e.f. the ckite of initkil appointment. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State 6ovt. of ChhatKsgarh & others (Supra). 6. In view of that this petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as •^-.-"r Yogesh to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihntri Judge