WiyTPETITIQN (S) ^No. 3547 of2007 •< 'ETITTON: Saiiki Lal Safau Aeed about 45 Years, S/'o Shri Bliagwatiya Saliu, Assistaat Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Adajhar, Talisil Kliarsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ihivnandan Prasad Patel Aged about 46 years, S/o Bharat La5 Patel, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Kudekela, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSVS State of Chhattisearh Throudi Secretary, School Educatioa Departmeat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Tne Director Public Instmction Department Raipur (C.G.) District Education Qfficer Raigarh District Raigarfa (C.G.) Block Education Officer Khai-sia, Distt. Raigarh (C.O.) Biock Education OfBcer, )haramjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Assistaiit CoiTumssioner Tribal Welfare ;.G.) 1 ».aig WMT PET'mON LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF ES'DIA *Stasle : Hon'Ue Justice Shri Satisfa K. AsaBtotri. Shri Aml Moun'a, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt Anju Aliuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe S (Passed on 26m day of June, 2007) 1. The question of law involved herein is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.fthe date ofinitial appoiatment or from the date ofcompletion ofprobation period. 2. Lsamed couasel aopearing for the petitioner as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and questioa of law Amit involved in the present -WTit petition are -the same as to that ofin W.P.(S') No. 5976/2006 (Suslul Tiwari and others Vs. State Govermnent of C'Miattlsgarii & Ofhers), which was allov»'edvide order dated 7.11 .2006. 3. However, the State Govemment is at liberty to verify the appointment of the petitioners in order to find out whether the facts offhe preseat case are identical to that ofW.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (supra). 4. Ia view ofthe above-stated submissions made bv leamed counsel for the parties, the wri.t petition is aSlowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. i , Sd/_ ; Satish KAgnihotri , Judge ,