IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ w.P. (S) No. Mé 12009 s.B. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS : 1. Garud Singh Patel, S/o Shri Padum Singh Patel, aged about 55 years, Occupation- Head Master, Middle School Darridih, Dharamjaigarh Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Harshwardhan Mishra, S/o \6’Q , .‘\{Q 4’ Y” Shri Parmeshwar Mishra, \0/ aged about 55 years, Occupation- Head Master, Middle School Junadih, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. AssistantCommissioner Trial Welfare Department ' Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1096 of 2009 Petitioners Garud Singh Patsl 8r. another Versus Respondents State of Chhatu'sgarh 81s another WRIT PE’I‘ITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (oral) Heard. (Passed on this 19th day of November, 2009) 1. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on a nxed pay of Rs. 100/-. After completion of their respective probah‘on period, they were granted regular pay scale. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved-in the case is asto Whether, the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of miual appointment or after completion of probation period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on the averments made in the return dated 3.8.2009 submits that the Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, has i already passed two orders dated 29.6.2007 and 27. 12.2008 that the petitioners are entitled to regular pay-scale nom the date of mltral appomtment It rs expected that the appropriate order Will be passed accordingly, complying With the above-stated orders dated 29.6.2007 and 27. 12.2008, in the present case, expeditiously. 5. In view of the foregoing nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. The petition is accordingly stands disposed of No order asto costs. ‘3._‘ ' Sd/— t , Satish K. Agnihotri {l , ‘ ‘Judge i i i