Tejrani Patel v. State of C.G. & .Others),whichwasdisposedofvideorderdatedlQ
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed ofm the same
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SATISH K. AGMHOTRI WRIT PETITION <S) No.233ZM2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Tekram Sahu S/o Keshabo Sahu Aged about - 56 years R/o village - Chootekenabhata Post - Nawapara, The. & Distt. Raigarh VERSUS , . :
State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
District Education Officer Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.)
Block Education OfBcer Bloolc - Raigarh District-Raigarh(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ' ! PreseDt: Shri Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriAjayDwivedi, PanelLawyerfQr:the State/respondents. ^RD£R (:Passedonl6uldayofApril,2QQ7)
Operative part
3. The question oflaw involved hereia is asto whether the petitioner is entitled to regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment or from the date ofcompletion ofprobation period. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner as we31 as for the State/respondents jointly submit that the facts and question of law mvolved in the present writ petition are the same to that of in W.P.(S) No. 2178 of 2007 (Tejrani Patel Vs. State of C.G. & .Others),whichwasdisposedofvideorderdatedlQ.04.2007.~ • In view of the above-stated submission made by the leamed counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed ofm the same terms. No order as tocosts. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '<&: §£- .1 Amit
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed ofm the same
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.