-./^''? ^3HSBS^^^^^- ;HIQBSOUR-KOF€HI-IATTJSGARHATBILASPUR ^ WritVetition.jlSLNoagSlof.lflfiZ ..ntfl.-.^:.'- Ku. Narmada Netam (now Smt. Thakur) Age abciUt^4£year,Astt.Teacher W/o Shri Charan Singli^Jhakur govt. H.S. Schooi Sidesar Block - Kanker, Distt. - Kanker • (C-G-) , :" Versus 1. "~ State of Chhattisgarh, through - the ^' SecretaErx; ^Trjbal Welfare Department & -Educatioh Department D.K.S. Bhawan, : ' Distt.- Raipur (C.G^ 2. Astt. Cfirnrrf^sipner Trifc>al Weifare DepartmentKankerBistt.Kanker(C.G.) ~ ^ ^ 3. Treasure.Aecounts Kanker Distt. Kanker •(CX5) . : .• .: 4. Joint Director Treasury, AccoUnt & Penssloh Jagdalpur djstt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) ^WritPet!tionunderArtiG!e226oftheConstJtuti6nof!ndial Sinale Bench: Hon'tole Justice Satish K. Aanihotri Pregent ; ^ ShrfcSomkant Verma, Advocate for the petithsner. ""^•~;iSmt.AnjuAhuja,Dy.Govt.Advocatef6rth8State. ORDER My. (Passed^n 28m Jyne, 2007) -~ - :. ^TheiquestjQn of law involved isras to whgther the petitioner is erititied to regulaRpay scate n'.e.f. tKe cfateof initial aRpointment or from :th6<lateofeompletJonQfprobation:pfifiod;.~ g ? ^^ 2, l^amed'eounsel appeari'tig.fQr the petitioner as well as for the :-reSBsndents/Siate-jdintly submtt^tia£;t!ie^facts and question of law ^mvfiiK'ed in the presentwrit petWQn.:are^the same tothatofin W.P. (S) No.5976/20 (Sushit Tiwari and others Vs. State Government of Chhattrsgarh and others), which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. ,....• ':-: ..: - -. ; .. ' , - 3; Trt'Mew.of the above-stated submissions made by leamed eounsel appearifig for the parties, the writ petition isallowed in the sameterms. ;Eorderast6co3fs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotrl Judge ^;,~^.-;