"<iSg^ 1^1 i',^ ^y 1^ It5' Petit'oner Respondents 'writ Petraon (Sl No.977ofMoS Deen Dayal Patel, S/o. Shri Kapleshwar Prasad Patei, aged about 57 years, Assistant Teaoher, Government Primary School, Saraipaii, Biock K'narsia, District Raigam (CG). Versus .c/ 1) State of Ctihattis.garh, through Secreta.'y; School Educstion Department. D.K.S. 5hsvftffln. RalDUf (CG). 2) Asslstant Commissioner. Tribal VVeifare Department Raigarh (CG). 3) Btock Education Cfficer, Kharsia, District Raigarh (VVrit Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) S8: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present Shri V.K.Tekam, counse! for the petittoner. Shrl Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. (Passed on 15 February, The petitloner 'was initially appointed on 12-8-1974 as Assistant Teachers on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100/- for one year and ihereafSer Rs.150/- for second year on probation for a period of two yeare. After oompletion of probation, the petitioner v;as granted regular pay scaie of Rs. 169-300/- on 11 -10-1 976. 2) The question of lav/ invoived herein asio v,»hetherthe petitioner is entrtled to re.quiar pay scate with effect from the date of initial appointment or from the date of completion of probation period. 3) Learned counsel appering ror the petitioner as weli as for ths State/respondents iointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the petition are the same to that of Writ Petition (S) No.5976 of 2006 (Sushii Tiwari & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8. others). which was ailowed vider order IffisH ff 3 I lil ®^3 ^) ^SStsstt ff^'''y/ -2-- 7-11-2006. Learned counsei further subm,t that thjs petition may be dlsposed of in tne same terms. 4) in view of the above-stated submisslon made by iearned oounsei appearing for the parties, the writ petition is aiiowed in the same terms i.e., the petitioner te sntitted to regular pay scaie with effect from the initial date of appointment Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri H M • Bl