Writ Petition (S) No. 3044 of2007 Petitioners 2. 3. 5. o. 7. Respondents versus 1 2. Smt. Pritima Verma, Age about 37 years, Assistant Teacher, W/o Shri Yashwant Singh Verma, Govt. Primary School, Shankar Nagar, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Pyare Lal Kurre, Age about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Hiraman Das Kurre, Govt. Primary School, Dhansuli, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Fagu Ram Dewangan, Age about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Makhan La! Dswangan, Govt. Middle School, Mokhla, bIock-Arang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Onkar Prasad Verma, Age about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Late Shri Sadan Lsl Verma, R/o : Viliage - Siwani, P.O.-Gordhi, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Churamani Sahu, Age about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Chandu Lal Sahu, Govt. Boys Primary Schooi, Block Coiony, Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.5 Mordhvvaj Verma, Age about 39 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Bali Ram Verma, Govt. Primary School, Baktara, Block - Arang, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Sukhdev Ram Sahu, Age about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Sukalat Sahu, Govt. Girls Hr. Sec. Schoo!, Abhanpur, Block-Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Anur Kumar Triwendra, Age about 37 years, Assistant Teacher, S/o Shri Jhumaku Ram Trivendra, Govt. Primary Schooi, Kuhera, Distt.-Raipur(C.G.) State Government of Chhattisgarh, Through:- Secretary, Education & Tribal Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Educatron Officer, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Petition uncierArticle 226 ofthe Constjtution of India t^ Smgte Bench: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Pressnt: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Panel iawyer for the State/respondents. Thakur 0_&DLE-B (Passed on 11"' Day of 1. The question of law involved herein is asto v/hether the petitioners are entitied to reguiar pay scaie w.e.f. the date of initiai appointment or from the date ofcompletion of probation period. 2. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointiy submit that the facts and question of !aw invoived in the present writ petition are the same to that of in W.P. (S) No. 1463 of 2006 (Aeman Jain vs. The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another), which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2006. 3. in view of the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge