' \1 ‘/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(S) N0. 4738 of 2005 l\ Pezitioners :1. Birendra Nath Roy, Sic Smi Ram Janma Roy, Aged about 38 years, Gcvt. H.S. School, Koilibeda, Block Koilibeda, msft. Kanker (C.G.) 2. Rainoo Ram Hidko, S/o Shri Saradu Ram, aged about S7 years, Govt. HS. School Koillbeda, Block Kollibeda. Distt. Kanker (C.G.) 3. Shambhoolal Dugga, S/o Late Tullu Ram, aged about 36 years, Boya Primary School Kollibeda, Block Kollibeola, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Rohit Kumar Yadav, S/o MR. Yadav, aged about 34 years, Primary School Chilparas, Block Koilibecla, Distt. Kanker ((3.9) U1 Mom.. .Umm )l 3 |_ .emw, D§ 33 w. f) F .aie D Maw Ram, aged about 42 years, Primary School Junagawedegaon, Block Kollibeda, Distl’. Kanker (CG) 6. Kamal Narayan Wattl, S/o Shri Lakhma Ram, aged about 37 years, Primary School Kesekodipara, Block Kollibeda, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Ram Narayan Sinha, Sic Late Suk Lal, aged about 37 years, Primary School Panldobir, Block Kollibeola, Distt. Kanker (C .G .) 8. Dev Nath Kemro, S/o Shri Pll Sal, aged about 33 years, Primary School Katgaon, Block Koilibeda, Distt. Kanker (co) 9. Ray Singh Netam, S/o Shri Sukalu Ram, aged about 41 years, Primary School Alparas, Block Koilibeda, Distt. Kanker (CG) 10. Bansoo Ram Netam, S/o Shri Harakh Ram, aged about 33 years, Primary School Udanpur, Block Koilibeda, Distt. Kanker (C6,) Versus , Respondents , :1 . State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretaiy, Tribal Weifare Department, Bhopal (ll/LP.) Through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (CG) 3. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopai (MP) 4. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare nnnarhmnpé us}; iuuciu, P\al 'v-un- {f‘ f: \ 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, $3: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Mr. PP. $ahu, Advocate far the petitioners. Mr. Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Acivocate fer the respondentsiState. Gcwr': o R D E R {Passéd an this 10E Day of ApriL 2007) . The question of law involved herein asto Whether the petitioners are entmed to regular pay scaie w.e.f. ihe date of initiai appointment or from the date of completion of probation period. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners as weii as for the Stateirespondents joinriy submit that the facts and question of taw involved the present writ petition are the same to that of in WP. (s) No. 5976 of 2006 (Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & others). which was allowed vide order dated 7.1 1 .2006. ln view of the above-stated submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri l 11 Judge ‘ l‘ Sd/— Kl l