,,"*<•, ;. jy- HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPyR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Writ PeUtion (S.l No.3351 of 2008 Petitioners 1. 2. 3. Respondents Vereus 1. 2. Suryakant Tripathi, age about 58 years, Asstt. Teacher^S/o Shri Heman Prasad Tripathi, Primary School Chicholi, Btock - Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Bisram Kurre, age about 54 years, Headmaster, S/o Shri Heeraram Kurre,Govt. Primary School Darra (k), Block-Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Kartik Ram Sao, ageabout 52yeare, U.D.T.,8/0 Shri GoverdhanSao, IVIiddleSchool Chotegumda.Block- Gharghoda,Distt.Ratgarh(C.G.) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Educatton Department D.K.S. Bhawan.Distt. Raipur (C.G.) District . Education Officer Raipur/Raigarh, Distt. Raipw and Raigarh(C.G.) WntPetition underArticle226 ofthe Constitutionoflndia Present: ShriSomkantVerma.counselforthepetitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the StaWrespondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 1st day of July, 2008) With the consent of learned counset appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (2) Leamed counsel appearing for thepetitioners submitsthat the petitioners No.1 to 3 were appointetfas Deputy Teacherona fixed pay of Rs.100/- in theyear 1974,1973 and 1977 respectively. After completion ofprobation period, the petitioners were granted regular pay-scale. He further submits Uiat the issue involved inthe case isas f •w •2-- to whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay-scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. Leamed counsel further submits ftiatthe issue mvoh^ed in this case is squarety covered by a decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Admlnistrative Tribunal, Jabatpur passed in Originat ApplicaUon No.2745/1989 (KSsKlhukant Yadu and 56 othersvs. State of M.P. anct others), wherein itwas held that similarly situated teachers are entitled to regular pay-scale with efFect from the date of initial appointment. (3) The matter was taken-up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal vras dismissed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu and56 othersvs. State of M.P. andaVhers (supra). (4) In view of the above submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same temns, i.e., the peUtioners are granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, to consider their cases, if they stand on the same footings, as per the order dated 24-08-1992 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur in Original Application No.2745/1989 (Madhulwnt Yaduand S6 (^hersvs. SteteofMP. and ofters) (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the order dated (G-01- 1994 passed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6892/1993 andgrant reliefaccordingly. (5) In view of the fbr^olng, the petition is disposed of. No order as tocosls. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sopal