^s;. './ ,€X^ ^y INJlIEJHIGHCQUm* QPCHHATTISGARHLBILASPUR WntPetition (S) No. 1288 of 2009 Petitioner Versus Respoudents 1. 2. 3. 4. Sanu Ekka, age about 40 yeax', Headsiiaster, S/o Shri Lairantus Ekka, R/o Village - GoUdeeh, Post - Tumla, Block - Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur (C.G,) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretary, Trible. Wetfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Astt, Coiuniissioner, Trible Welfare Departmeut, Jashpur, Distt. - Jashpur (C.G.) Block Education Ofiicer, Pharsabaliai, Distt.—Jashpur(C.G.) Trcasury Account & Pension, Jashpiir, Distt. -Kanker(C.G.) WRITPTmONUNDERARTICLE226QF^^^ (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnUiotri J.) Shri SonikaDit Verma, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Yashwaat Siagh Thalair, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/ State. 1. 2. ORDER (Passed on this 23rd day ofMarch, 2009) With fhe consent of learaed counsel appearing for ftie parties, the raatter is heard finally, Leamed counsel appearing for tiie petitioner submite fhat fhe petitioner is entiUed to graat of tevo mcrements as he has obtained D.Ed. certiiicate on his own expenses during fhe sen/rice period. Leamed counsel further subniits fhat fhe petitioner niay be granted Mbeity to niake a representation to fhe aufhorities for grant of two iacreiaents pursuaat to fhe judgiaent aiid order passed by fhis Court ia fhe inatter of 4. ^ Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Munidpal Corporation, Durg and another1 aad W.P.(S.) No. 4130 of 2005, Gopesh Kumar Vermavs. ITie State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another, On 4.3.2009, ia spite of fhe opportunity granted to the State/respondehts, on fheir request, to file response, no afiidavit is filed. The State Goveniment is under an obUgation to follow fhe law setded by fhis Court aiid it is not necessaiy to approach this Court by each aad eveiy eniployee when fhe law has already been settied by fhis Court. The einployees, who are sinularly situated aad have not approached fhe Court, may be treated at par wifh ofher eraployees, who have approached this Court. It is not necessary to approach this Court for sixnilar order. In view of fhe foregoin.g reasons, this petition staads disposed of wifh Uberty reseryed to fhe petitioner, on the request of leamed counsel, to raake a representation, If fhe representation is filed by the petitioner, fhe saine Biay be considered aad decided, isi accordarice wifh law on its own merit as expeditiously as possible, preterably withm a period of eight weeks froni fhe date of receipt of fhe representation. Consequeutly, pendiag appUcations, tfaay, staxid disposed of ThaJkur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006(11) MPJR-CG 96