^(^7 S3i*l, ^^^B^sJ C QEfiWt IN THE HOM'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) N0.'3^^/2010 PETITIONER ^ °.-••" \^A/'..^ ^^ ^s?x ^'.J* . %••' <ir" .,.•-' ^•••'"" ^y RESPONDENTS Shri T.C. Dwedi S/o. Shri Rambharosh Dwedi, aged about : 81 years, (Retired Head Master) R/o. Jhulkadam, Temar Road, Sakti, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). 2] • The Directpr, School Education . Department, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). ^"' 3] District Education Officer, Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . i.]1""'1""— '" ..t2B-=- -HC—78 ^~5T '3TPIRT^, ^ftWTS', H<ni<Hy .^.&l.'^.:3.M.d.lv. an^i 'SR W* ^^ S^^ S?>^ DuuyS sn^?n TW tWTW ^lftd SIltW SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohari 15-07-2010 Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel Leamed eounsei Tor the p4titioner submitted that on account of petiUoner's promotion on the post ^f Head Master Trom the post of Upper Division Teacher, he was entitie<l Fundamentai Ruies and according|iy, his pay was liable to be flxed in accordance with the same by gn nting benefit of incpemente. Leamed been decided by this Court in the cai Chhattisgarh and others, decided Annexure P/1 which was foliowed b't but the same has not so far been dectided Taking fnto consideration th4 ^F^T^f^^ ^' t^t <r^<^i< ^? aiRTT air^i Shrivastava. J. eounsel for the petitioner. to benefrt under Rute 22-D of the eounsel for the petitioner submHs thjat this issue involved in the petitton has |e of Ved Prakash Pandey v. State of |on 27/0»2008 in W.P.(S) No.4991/106. rhereafter, the petitioner submittejd representation to respondents vide another representation (Annexure PO), fact that the peiltioner has submitted representation and ctaiming benefit <}f order passed by this Court, respondent shaii take decision on representation in accordanc® with law within a reasonable period. In case, tfte petifloner is stiii|aggrieved and his grievanoe is sUti not redressed, it would be open for t^ie petitioner to take recouise to sueh remedy, as may be available to him itnderttw iaw. With the aforesaid observatiorjs, the petition is finalty disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge \4^,y A'