HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P43) No. 1726 of 2007 Petitioners :1. Ramnarayan Pradhan Age about 40 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Tiharu Ram Pradhan Govt. Primary Schoo! Nawadih B!ock - Karta!a,‘Distt. - Korba (C.G.)‘ RamkriShna Yadav Age about 36 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Dhansay Yadav Govt. Primary School Janrve Block - Kartala, Distt. ~ Korba (C.G.) Ramratan Singh Kariwar Age about 44 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Budhwar Singh Kanwar Govt. High. Sec. Schooi Tuman Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba” (ca) Hetram Manhar Age about 42 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Sanau Ram . Manhar Middle School Kerwan Dwari Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) . Santosh Kumar Tiwari Age about 43 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Odhan Prasad Tiwari Primary School Kerwan ‘ Block - Kartala, Distt.-Korba (C.G.) Kamta Prasad Paikara Age about 42 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o ShriBihari Lal’ Paikara Primary School Ghanthaduwari Block - Kartala, Diem-Korba (C.G.) Vijay Lal Banjare Age about 39 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Tijram Banjare GovtxPrimary School Sendripali Block - Kartala, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) Shivratan Singh Kanwar Age about 45 year, Asstt. Teacher S/o Shri Budhwar . Singh Kanwar'Primary School Keshla Block - Kartala, Distt.-Korba (C.G.) Versus Respondent‘s :1 . State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) ' Astt. Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Korba District-Korba (C.G.) District Education Officer Korba District-Korba (C.G.)t SB: Hon'lole Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 22“a Day of March, 2007) . The question of law involved herein asto whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from’ the date of completion of probation period. . Learned ‘counsei appearing for the petitioners as well as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of law l involved the present writ petition are the same to that of in WP. (s) No. 5976 of 2006 (Sushil Tiwari & others Vs. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & ' others), which was allowed vide order dated 7.1 1 .2006. . ln view of the above-stated submission made by learned‘counsel for the parties, the Writ petition is allowed in the same terms. No Order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agniri Judge hot 5 l J