HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT 8ILASPUR W.P. (S) No. 1962 of 2007 Versus 1. Purushottam Laf Sonwoni, aged about 49 years, son of Shri Akshay Sonwani, working as Assistant Terficer, Oeptt of Tribal, Sovemment Primary 5chool Ambachuwan, resident of Kunkuri, Tohsil fainkuri, Oistt. Jashpur (C.6.) (51. No. 480 of the Impuguned Order Annexure P-1) 2. Vinod Rom, son of Late Chandru Ram, aged about 50 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Dept of Tribol, Sovemment Primary Sehool - Komodo, Trfi. Dulduia, Distt. Jashpur (C.6.) resident of Choraidand, Tdi. Ouldulo, Distt. Jashpur (C.6.) (51. No. 263 of t+ie Impuguned Order AnnexureP-1) 3. Jairom Sidar, son of Jegat Ran Sidar, eged about 42 yecrs, working as Assistant Teahcer, Tribnl bepartment, ffovemment Primary School - Betghutry, resident of Cha-aidand, Tch. Outduto, Distt. Jashpur (C.S.) (51. No. 441 of the Impiguned Order Annexure P-1) 4. Rqjesh Khakha, son of Late Johan Khokha. a9ed obout 40 yeors, working as Assistant Teahcer, Tribal &cpartment, 6ovt Primary School Komodo, resident of Chm-aidand, Tah. '' Duldula, bistt. Jashpur (C.5.} (51. No. 360 of the Impu9uned Order Annsxure P-1) 1. State of Oihattisgarh, through the Secretory, Depwtment of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kolyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.S.) ^^^^^^^^F^F^^^^^^^^^^^^^t ;^!^*!®^^ ,&'"^ ^^^^^I^S^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^,\ 2. The A^istont Commissioner, Deptt of Tribal, Distt. Jashpur (C.6.5 3. B!ockTribatOfficer,Block Kunkuri, bistt. Jeshpu- (C.S.) Present: Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate for the petitioner'. Ms. Sunita Jain, Pane! Lawyer for State/respondents. OR&ER (Passed on this 2nd t>ay of ^pril, 2007) 1. The question of law involved hepein osfo whether the petitioners are entitled to regulor pcy scale w.e.f. the date of inittal oppointment or from the date of completion of probation per-iod. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of law invotved the present wrif petition ore the swne es to that of in W.P. (S) No. 4725/2006 (Amar Sai Ram & others Vs. State of Chhattisgwh <S others), which was disposed ofvide order doted l.9.2(X)6. 3. In view of the above-stated submissions made by lear-ned counsel for the parties, the wit petition is disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sufchflsh ves"