HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2922 of2007 Petitloners 'i. Sadhram Rathiya S/o Shri Jethuram Rthiya, aged about 43 years, Working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary SchoQi Kufrrstbh3unfl. BiockQhsrahQds. Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Harishchandra Sao S/o Shri Balaram Sao, agsd about 41 vears, Workina as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Schooi Patrapaii, Block Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Chakradhar Singh Patel S/o Shri Kashiram Patel, aged about 49 years, Working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Auramuda, Block Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Laxmikant Shriwas S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Shirvas, aged about 42 years, Working as Assistant Tsacher, Govt. S.C. Balak Ashram Schooi-Bhathagaon (Kosir), Biock Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. 6. Respondents Versus 1. 2. Hemla! Gopal S/o Shri Chhabiial Gopal, aged about 44 years, Working as Asslstant Teacher, Govt. S.C. Balak Ashram School-Basinbahra, Block Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Mayaram Anant S/o Shri Bhagat Ram Anant, aged about 47 years, Working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle Schoo!- Kaya, Post Kaya, Via-Lailunga, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) State of ChhatSisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofTribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, Tahsi! and District (C.G.) WRiT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^^^^^"7~^':^S^^^»^S1^^. Hon'bie Justice Shri Satish K. Aanihotri B/- Present: Mr. Santosh K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Panel iawyer for the respondents/State. 0&&E_R (Passed on this9Hidayof May, 2007) 1. The question of law involved herein is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay sca!e w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from the date of completion of probation period. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of !aw involved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in W.P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari and others Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh and others), which was al!owed vide order dated 7.11.2006. 3. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is aiiowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge