HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!L~A$PUR Writ Petition (S) No, 293 of 2008 Petitioners 1. Nandlal Kenwat Son of Brijial Kenwat. aged about 45 years. Assistant Teacher, in the Primary Schoot Navin Parkhanda Biock Kurud. Distria Dhamtari (ca). Meghnath Sahu Son of Hariram Sahu, ageri about 49 years, Assistant Teacher‘ in the Primary School Gadadih, Biock Kuud District Dhamtan (C G) Smt Damyanti Bar Wife of Jageshwar 1‘0 }fa phandrakar Son of Kheduram armri about 47 years ’ r m the Primary Schooi Gacéeéii Jock Kurud, District Dhammri (CG) 5. Kiiiawwar Narh sinha Son of Ramraia Qmhé, arms. ehout 50 years Upper Dwmam Teaoher. Govt. Girls Higher Seoor Schooi Kurud’ District {v.Q.) Di’ig i 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : rThe Secretary, Schooi Education Department. D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (CED; Director. Public instructions, Directorate, Raipur (6.6.) The District Education Officer. Dhamtari. District Dhamtari (C.G.) e The Block Education Officer, Kurud, District Dhammri (C.G.). {d'. ”r-TWGW UNP§R ARTI‘PW 2% ¢F ruriou OF iNDiA gt; rich Hon’bte Mr SatishK Agnihotri, Stir i’ysy Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for‘the petitioner. Smi. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. @ X n g‘“ f ‘ g R in £E§£JQED£E ( sat; cw :hls 14‘“ day of January, 2008) The paiuaners No.1 to 4 were appointed inmaliy on a tixed pay of Rs. 1239!», whereas tha petitioner No.5 was appointw initially on a tixed pay a? Rs, malaix Th3 petmoners were thereaner. granted regular pay scalm um w l :mn ofthe probation period. The quezwilan of law involved herein ls, asto whether the petitioners are entitled la: ,3 acale w.e.f. the date of inlllal appointment or from the (lat: 5:: f probation period. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel it; fer the respondents/State jointly submit that the fade and mvolved in the present writ petition are the same asto that ~t r ”’F‘a No. 5191/2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others Vs. State of Chhrlewgae t; others). which was disposed of vide order dated 3.10 2G% ln view of the above-stated submissions made by learned counsel ap e rig fer the parties the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms aeiglee" tr “rhication of the facts No order asto cos$ _ J Sd/. \N ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ll Judge l ll “ r w