IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W’l'it Petition §§Q No. i6i} 012008 PETITIONER : Bhikham Singh Marabi, S/o Shri Daduram Maravi, aged about 51 years, Upper Division Teacher Government Boys Middle School, Dhobhar, Block Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG). RESPONDENTS : I. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Depzmment, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). VERSUS 2. (CG). The Director Public Instmction Department, Raipur District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG). “9’: (CG). Block Education Officer Marwahi, District Bilaspur (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS H l U l ION OF INDIA) gSB: Hon’hle Mr. Sggglgmigmi ”JInhotlm'g‘, JQ resent : Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra , Panel Lawyer for the Statez’respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10 ofJanuary, 2008) The petitioner was appointed on 26.12.1981 as Assistant Teacher on iixed pay of Rs. 150/-. ARer completion ofprobation, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale. ’ Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case is asto whether, the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale wef. the date of initial appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. The issue involved, herein was considered by the Mathiya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu and 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 appointment. The matter was taken up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the H P Teachers/Assistant Teachers are entitlgd to regular pay scale §om date of initial appointmem. 4. L/Leamed counsel appearing for the petitimler iiirther submits that Court, while considering the same issue in Paras Nath Gupta Vs. of Chhattisgarh 8c others (WP. (S) No. S8 of 2007} by order dated 15.01.2007, has granted regular pay scale wef. the date of initial appointment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the case squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Paras Nath Gupta Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & others (Supra). 6. In View ofthat this petition is allowed in the same terms. No order asto costs. ii WV: Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu