HIGH (X>URT OF CHHAmSQARH AT BItASPUR Writ Petttion (S) No. 2965 <rf a%)7 1. Tlka Ram Verma Age about 36 years, ^stetant Teacher, S/o Shri Ledgu Ram Verma Govt. Prlmary School, Rewa, Btock- Arang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt, Mukti Nayak (Bals) Age about 37 yeare, ^telstant Teacher, W/o Shri Vijay Ram Nayak, Govt. Primary School, Bramhanpara, Dlstt.-R3ipur(C.6.5 3. Prakash Kumar Sahu Age about 35 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shrt iasant Ram Sahu, Govt. Prtmary School, Chalwe, Biock- Arang, D!stt.-Ralpur(C.G.) 4. Rajesh Kumar Sahu Age about 35 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Bri) Lal Sahu Govt. Prln-Bry School, Chhati, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5, Smt. Meeta Shukla Age about 36 years, Aaistant Teacher, W/o Shri Naveen Shukla Govt. Middie Schoo!, Amapara, Dlstt.- Ra!pur (C.G.5 6. Smt. Madhuri Deshpandey (Barway) Age about 36 yrare, Asstetant Teacher, W/o Shri . Tushar Banvay Govt, Girls Primary Sdioot, Nlvedna W, Distt.- Ralpur ; (C.G.5 7. i Smt, Savita Ganguli Age about 47 years, Assistant Teacher, W/o Shri Amtt Kumar Gangutt R/o : Dl/21 Bangla, GayatS-' Nagar, Distt.- Ralpur (C.G.) 1. State GavemrnentofQihat^sciarh, Through Secretary, EducaUon & Triba! Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dlstrict Eduratlon Offlcer Raipur (C.G.) 3. Dlstrlct Educatlon Offlcer Dhamtari (C.G.) Constikution of India iingSe Bench: Hon'ble Mr. JusticsSatish K. Agnihofa-i. Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mre. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt, Advocate for Uie SBte/respondenls. ^' 1 %. ORDER (Passed on IIth Day of May, 2007) 1. The question of tav involved herein B asto whether the petltionere are entitted to regular pay scate w.e.f. the date of initial appolntment or from the date of completlon of probation pertod. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petittonere as vrell as for the State/respondente jointly submit that the facts and questton of law invoh/ed In the present writ petition are ti'ie same to that of in W.P. (S) No. 5191/2006 (Har Prasad Kurre and others vs. State of Chhottisgarh & other-s), which «vasdisposed of vide order dsted 3.10.2006 3. In view of the above-stated submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petltion te dlsposed of m the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^.