^1 *^ <& c ^ 1-2-0 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ("C.G.1 Writ Petition (S} No. ! ^6^? /2007 PETITIQNER \(/> ^ .•>'' '5^ "w <,„. RESPONDENTS ^^Eo:c^ .%'° ^o.&.^ s»» /1. 2. Kumari Elezabeth Lakda (after marriage Elezabeth Xalxo), wife of Domentius Xalxo, aged about 44 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Department of Education, Government Primary School Girhaildih, resident of Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (SI.No. 5 of the Impugned Order P-1) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 3, Block Education Officer, Block Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ^- sybM<f/3^s" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^•'""'"^^ OF INDIA &aLai-M^,.._\^ HISH COfltT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW Petitioner .P. (S) No. 1963 of 2007 Versus Kumari Efezefoeth Lokda (after morricge Elezdbeth xalxo), wife of DomentiiK Xalxo, aged ebout 44 years, working as Assistant Teacher, Departmenf of Education. ©ovemment Primory School Sirhaildih, resident of Kunkurt. Tahsil Kunkuri, bistt. Jashpur (C.6.) (51. No. 5 of the Impiguned Order- p-1) 1. State of Chhottisgarh, through the Secretary, bepartment of School Educotion, Dau Kotyan Sin9h Bhcnwan, Raipur (C.6.) 2. &istrict Education Offieer, Distt. Jashpur (C.S.) 3. Block Education Officer, B!ock Kunku-i, Distt. Jashpur (C.6.) Present: Mr. Hca*ish Idiunt-iya, Advocote for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel ta»»yerfor State/respondents. ¥- OR &ER (Passed on this 2Iri t)ay of April, 2007) 1. The question of lcuv invotved herein csto whether the petitioner is entitted to regulw poy scale w.e.f. the date of initiol appointment or from the dote of compietion of probation period. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner os well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of taw invoived the present writ petitfon ore the same as to that of in W.P. (S) No. 4725/^X)6 (Amar Sai Ram & others Vs. Stote of Chhattisgarh & others), which was disposed ofvide order doted 1.9.2(X)6. ^ 3. In vtew of the above-stated submissions made by leamed eounsel for the parties, fhe writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- „:;: Safish KAgnihdtri , Judge ".. ; Sufchash ^•-' r