(V Wi ifiARH AT BILASR/'S .p'.iL.^^rv! u/ p ('si Kfa 24S2 af 2007 f-? t; * i.Si^^ 1''^? i •t=>-i.''<trf£s %ifi Sa^^;y Libr.us Lukda, about 41 years, son of itmrus Lakda, .Assistant Teacher, fiovernment Primary ac Vikas Khand DuSduSa Distt. Jashpu" (C.&.) (Name oppears at sl.no. 374 of appCfiritment order) Versy-s KesponaenTs 1. The Stcte of ChhattEsgi through - the Secretary, &ep<!ftmsnt of Triba!. Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur /w G. \ l^.o'." 2. The Asslstant t''.offlmissic-ner, &istrlct Jashpur (C.6.} 3. Tne Block Education Officer, Block Dulduia, &istt. Jashpur rc.e.) Writ Petition under A"+ic!e 226 of the Constilistion of India Hon'b!®Mr. K. Present; Anr. U.R. Koshdey, Advocate for the petitioner. M.r, Ajay Owiv'edi, Pans! Law'yer for State/respondents. *'" O R & ES 'passed on this 20 Dsy of Ap"ij, 2007) 1. The question of faw involved hepein 'is whether the petittoner entitled to regular poy w.e.f. the date of tnitiol appointment or fr the dute of completion of ppobation periud. 2. Lecrned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wie!' as for the State/t-espondents jointly submit that the fucts and question of luw invoSved in the present writ petition ore the a.s to that of In W. P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushi! Tiwari and others vs. ©overnment of Chhattisgarh A others), which was alfowed vjde order dated 7.11.2006. *? T^. , d. tn view of the abave-stated submissions made by learned counse' fo" the partfes, the writ petition is dlowed in the same terms. No order as to CQStS. Sd/- Sati.sh KAgmhom Judge Stibhaih