HISH COURTOF CHHATHSGARH AT BIIASPUR Wrk Itetitton (S) No. 2732 «rf2007 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6, 7. Kiran Kumar Dubey Aged about 42 Years, S/o, Shri Nav Chandra Prasad Dubey, Asslstant Teacher, Prtmary School Sendrtpali, Shanker Lal Soni Aged about 50 Yeans, S/o. Shrl Moti Lal Soni Assistant Teacher, Primary School Ukla, Lakhan Lal Dansena Aged about 41 Years, S/o. Shri Kanhiya La) Dansena, Assistant Teacher, Primary School .lobi, Parmeshwar Lat yadav Aged about 47 years, S/o. Shri K. Nidhi Asslstant Teacher, Primary School Bhatunara, Niranjan Prasad Rathore, ^ed about 45 yeais, S/o Shri Ganedi Ram Rathore, Assfetant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Bhaludiuva, Blsheshar Prasad Patel Aged about 43 yeare, S/o Rohit Kumar Patel, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Java^ur, Ram Kumar Patet, Aged about 43 Yeare, S/o Tarachand Patel, Assistant Teacher Qyrt.. Primary School Gindola, Ail are at Btock Kharsja, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhatttegarti, Tlirough Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. TTie Director Pubtte Instructton Department Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Offfcer Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Btock Educatlm Offlcer Kharsla (C.G.5 5. Assistant Commisstoner Tribat Wetfare Department, Ralgarh Dlstt. Raigarfi (C.G.) Writ ortttton under Arttete 226 <rf the Constituyon of Xndia Singte Bench; Hon'bte Mr. Justlce Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Mr. Anil Mourya, Advocate for the petittoners. Mr, Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyerforthe StatQ/respondente. ResBondents Versus 1. f- ^- Subharfi ORDER (Passed on 7tt> Day of May,2007} 1. The question of law involved hereln is asto whether the petittoners are entMed to regular pay scate w.e.f. the date of InlUal appolntment or from the date of comptetion of probation pertod. 2. Leamed counsel appearfrig for the petltloners as well as for the State/respondente jointly submlt that the facts and question <rf law frivoh/ed In the present wrft petition are the same to that of in W. P. (S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwarl and ottiers vs. State Government of Chhattisgaitt & oUiers), whieh was allovwd vide order dated 7.11,2006. 3. In view of the above-stated submissions made by teamed counsel for the parties, tiie writ petitton fe allowffid in the same tenrs. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge