'y) t f^VTf ^\ fi"*fi~s T ~1 WRIT PETITION (S) J •T?,S1 .AJ: -ENTS i^ 1. Motiram Kashyap Age about 41 year, Asstt. Teaeher S/o Shri Rainphal Kashyap R/o Village + Post - Bhathipara Block - Bastar, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) 2. Ku. Vandaiia Khandalfcliar (Now Smt. Rawat) Aged about 42 year, -Asstt. Teacher W/o Shri Dileep Rawat Priniary Schoo! Parchanpal Block - Bastar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. Shiv Ram Smgli Mourya Age about 37 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Sukului-ain Mour>ra Boys Hostal Rotaia, Blc.ck - Bastar, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) 4. Chandra Biias Agrawam Ase about 38 year, Asstt. Teacher S/'o Late Shri H.R.Agrawam Higli School Ichchhapur Block - Bastar, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) 5. Marmuram Netam Age about 38 year, Asstt. Teachei- S/o Shri T.R.Netam Primary School IchcrAapur Block - Bastar, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) 6. Kamlochaa Bisai Age about 41 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Sliri Loknatii Bisai Pruiiarr' School Besrapal Bloek Bastar, Distt - Bastar (C.G.) 7. Smt. Rekha Kaiiiuu Age about 43 year, Asstt. Teacher W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Middle School Kolchur Block - Bastar, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) VESSUS 1. State Go\-t. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretar^- Tribal Wetfare. Departnient & Education Department D.K.S. Shawan, Distt. - Raiur (C.G.) 2. Astt. Conmussioner Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 3. District Education Oflicer Jagdalpur, District - Ba; (C.G.) 4. Block Education OfEcer Bastar, District - Bastar 'nn ^^-.VJ. 5. Treasure & Accounts Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTnVTION OF INDIA Present: Sinsle Bench : Hon'Me Jasfice Satfsh K. Agiijfaotri. Shi-i Somkant Verm.a, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Aliuia. Dv. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. (Passed on 26"' day ofjuae, 2007) The guestioa oflaw iiwolved herein is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pav scale vv.e.fthe date ofiaitial appomtment or from the date ofcompletion ofprobation period. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitionei^ as well as for the State/respondente jointly subrnit that the facte and involved ia the present wrif petition ars the same as to' No. 5976/2006 fSushii Tiwari aad others Vs. Statt question of law liatofinW.P.CS) attissarh &' Otfaers), which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. However, the State Govemment is at liberty to verify the appoifltment of the petitioners in order to fmd out whefher the facts of the preseat case are identical to that ofW.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (supra). In view ofthe above-stated submissions made bv leamed couasel for the partiss, the writ petition is aUowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Tlister