HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHAS?UR WRIT PETXTION (S) No. 2761 of 2007 PETITIONER , Sundar La} Netam Aged about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Bai Say Netam Primary School Rajagaon Block-Kondagaon, Distt. — Baster (C.G.) 2: Devendra‘ Kumar Baghe] Aga about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher 8/0 Shri Manik Ram Baghel Primary SQhool Kaghora Block. — Kondagaon, Distt. — Easter (C.G.} Samhhao Ram Kunjam Age about 38 years, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri J.R.Kunjam D.N.K. Coloney Kondagaon, Tahsil — Kondagaon, Distt. — Easter (C.G.) 4, Deo Raj Sordhi Age about 37 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Sukhdas Sordhi Primary Schoo! Kaehora Black ~ Kondagacm Disrt, - Easter {C.G.) 5: Lakhan Ram I’avam Age about 38 yearg, Asstt. ygeher 8/3 Shri LLachhindar Poyam Primary School Mrehrpara (Dahikonga) Biock — Kondagaon, Distt. - Baster (C.G.) 6, Ramdhar Markam Age ahout 40 years, Asstt. Teacher S/O Shri P.R.Markam Primary School Khandam Block — Kondagaorg Distt, Easter ( CG.) 7. Gokui Nath Diwan Age about 38 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Kurso Ram Diwan Primary School Nagari Block — Kondagaon, Distt. — Easter (C.G.) V)4 VERSUS : I, State Govt, of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department D,K,S, Bhawanr Distt. — Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 2. Asstt. Commissioner Officer Basrar; Drstriet — Bastar (C.G.) W Block Education Ofticer Kondagaon, District — Bastar (C.G.) 4: Treasum & Accounts Bastar, Djsttict — Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sin l on e Bench: H’ b i S ri. le Justice Shr atish K. A 'hot Shi‘i Sémnal‘h Verma5 Advocate for th¢ pe1itioners, Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 7m day of May, 2007) 1. The question of law involveci hereir; is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f the date of iniiial appointment or from the date of completion ofprobation period. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the present writ petition are the same as to that of in W.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushi! Tiwari and others Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was allowed vide order dated 7.1 1.2006. In View ofthe above-stated submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. J Sd/- ix Satish K.Agnihotl‘i i i " Judge Ami! Present: f