\, VRIT PETmON ^hherka Prasad Bharadwaj, Aged about 52 Years, S/o Slm Pilaram Bharadwaj, Assistant Teaefaer, Go\ri. Primary School, Suti R/o Village Telicot Tahsil Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSVS State of CMiattis.eaA' ThrouRh Secretan', School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director Public Insti"uction Departi'neiit Raipur (C.G.) District Education OfScsr Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) B!ock Educatioa OfEcsr, Kharsia, Distt. RaigaA (C.G.) Assistant Comniissioner, Tribal We.lfare Department Raigai-h (C.G.) UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INE !eB< i5y,ac^*T^' .i. 1 £'i?S'Xi:... ShriAai3 ShriA.S. pCt. va, Advocate Govt. Advocate for tiie State/resooadents. (Passed on 26"' day of June, 2007) The question of law involved herein is asto whether fhe petitioaer is enti'ded to regular pay scale w.e.fthe date ofinitial appoiiitment or from the date ofcompletion ofprobatioa period. Leamed couiisel appearine for the petitioner as we]l as for the State/'respondents iointlv siibmit that the facts and question of law involved m tlie present WTit petition are the same as to fhat of ia W.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (SusM Twari and others Vs. State Govermnent of CMiattisgarh & Others), which v/as allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. However, the State Govemment is at libe.rty to verify the. appointmeat of the petitioner in order to tiad oirt \~vh.efaw the facts ofthe present case are identical to that ofW.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (supra). In view ofthe above-stated submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, the wnt petition is a31owed in the same tenns. No order as to Sd/- -. :; Satish KAgmhotri , Judge ),