^ HIGH <»URTOF CHHATnscyUiH. BILASPUR W.P. »1No.7388 of 2007 PBTITIONBR Chuncndra Dnbria, age aboirt 38 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Brajraj Ram. Tribal Welfare Govt. Pruaaiy School Basanlpur, Block Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) RE8PONDENT8 2 3 4 Versus State Goveminent of Chhattisgarh, Tfarough Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Departmeat & Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, District Raipur (C.O.) Assistaat Comiiussioncr, Jashpiir, District Jashpur (CG) Block Education Officer, Pathalgaon, DistnctJashpur(C.G.) Treasury Account and Pension Jashpur, District Jashpur(CG) WRIT PETmpM UIIDBRARTICLE%a6 OP THB COM^TITUTIOB OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Soinkant Verma, Counsel for the pctitioner. Ms. Sunita Jam, Panel Lawyer for tbe State on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (13.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR 8INHA, J Hcard, I^eamed counsel for the pctitioner siibmjts that tbe issue involved in tbe case is as to whether t1ie petitioner is entitlcfl to regiilar pay scale w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointinent or firom Uie date of coiapletion of pnobation pcrK»d. He siibiriits that the issuc involwed here.in was considered t>y ttie Madhya Pradesh State Adniinistrative Tribunal, Jabalpiir in O.A. No.2745/89 (Madliukant Yadu and 56 others Vs. Statc of M.P. and others), wherrin, it was held that fhe sunilarly sitiiated teacheis are entitled to regiilar pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment Thc infltf.er was taken up to the Hon'bte SupTeme Court in Special Leave Petition (Cwi^ No.6892/93. Thc said petition was dismissed 2- WP(S) 73i?8/2(W7 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to fhe effect that the TBachers/Assistaot Teachers are entifled to regular pay scate fnom fhe dafe ofinitial appouitment I^eamed counsel for the pctitioner fiirther snbinits that ttus Court, while considering the satac issue in Rani Kiimar Sahu and others Vs. State Govt. of CUbLattisgarh and anofher (W.P.(S) No.813 of 2007) by oider dated 12.2.2007, has granted regiilar pay scale w.e.f. the date ofinitial appointment. Ijeamed counsel for fhe parties jointly siibmits that this casc is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofRain Kuinar Sahu and another (supra). In view ofthat, fhis petition is allowcd in tlie same tenns. Howcwer, this orier shaU be subjcct to all verificatfoTis laade by the State regarding facts pteaded in the petition. Sd/- Sunil KumarSiiiha Judge sunita