HIGH COURT OF CHH§TT§SGARH: BSLA$PUR Wri‘i Petition {$3 No. 1&2? of 2$53 Petitioner Nirma! Ram Kurre, Sio. Shri Kartik Ram Kurre, aged about 51, years: Upper Division Teacher} Gevemmem Middie Schaol, Kapu, Biock - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigar‘n (CG), Vargas Respondents Siate of Chhattisgarh, ihrough Secretary Schoo! Education Department, D.K.S‘ Bhawan; Raipur (CG) 2) The Director, Pubiic Instruction Department, Raipur(OG)i 3) District Education Officer, Raigarn (CG) 4) Biock Education Officen D‘naramjaigarh‘ District Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Aitioie 226 of the Constitution of india) so: Hon’bte ism. satisii K. Agnihotri, J. Ptesent: Shri V.Ki Tekam, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri AS Kachhawa‘na, Deputy Advocate Generai for the State. URN. DRDER (Fasgeo on 18m Fehmatyi 2mg) The petitioner was initiaiiv appointed on 4—1 O-‘i 979 as Assistant Teacher on a nxed pay scaie of Rec 150l- on probation tor a period of two years After completion of probation, the petitioner was granted reguiar pay scale of Rs’i6§-300I- on 193! 0—1981. 2) The question of law involved herein asto whether the petitioner is entitied to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initiai appointment or from the date or” compietion of probation period. 3) Learned counsel appering for the petitioner as weil as for the Statelrespondents iointiv submit that the facts and Question or” law invoived in the petition are the same to that of Writ Petition (S) No.5976 of 2006 (Sushii Tiwari & / x others Vs. State of Shhawsgarh & o¢hers§, which was aliowed vide order dafed 741-2006. Learned counsel further submit that this pei itien may be disposed of in ihe same farms. 4) in View 0f the above-siaied submission made by Earned caunsel appearing for the pariies, the writ petmon is aHowed in the same terms ire” the petrr'ioner is )th effect from the initiai date of appointment, subect to entitled to regutar pay scale w verificatien or“ the facts. j