^INSIE BBGH os-g'i* L^- ^s] IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHFiATTlSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No-' ^- /201 SB PETlTiONERS vXi?^ ^ .^>^1"' ..-• (^</-'"- ^"' ^ \. Kii. 'l'hresiamina V.V. D/o Shri. Yarkey V.l'). aged about-55 years, (H.M.). Llpper Division Teacher. R/o-Vimal Vid\;i Asliram I Ir. Sec. School, Marigiuia. Chiurgaon. Bakavvand (Via) Basla]--District(CG) ^ 1. HiIIarius Ekka, S/o Shri. Zacharias Ekka aged about-49 years, Upper Division Teacher. R/o-Vimal Vidva Ashram Hr. Sec. School. Mariguda, Chiurgaon, Bakawand (Via) Baslar-Oistrict(CG) ^ j. MaiiL'iiiraiu !^)ev\angan . S/o Shri, Mangal Sai, aged about-46 years. Upper Uivision Teacher. R/o-Vimal Vitivii Ashram Hr. Sec. Schooi. Mariguda. Chiurgaon. Bakavvand (Via) Baslar-District(CG) / 4. Ku. Thresia K. M., D/o Shri. Mathai aged aboiit-56 years, I'ppLT i)'visiun I'eacher. R/o-Vimal Viilv;! Asliram llr. Sec. Sciuiol. Mariaiiila. Chiurgaon. Bakawand (Via) Bastiir-l)istricl(CG) /5. Krishniicliandra Gupta, S/o Late Shri. Mahadeo, aged about-42 years, Upper Division Teacher, R/o-Vimal Vitlva Aslirain llr. Sec. School. N4arigLii.la. Chiurgaon. Bakawand (Via) Bast<!r-l;)istrict(CG) 6. j'l:ift)di)i Toppo. S/u Shri. Paiiliis Tupoo ;iL;?i] L!b!nil-4S vears. Upper Division'Teacher- R'o-Viinal v 9 RESPONDENTS Vidya Ashram Hr. Sec. School. Mariguda, Chiurgaon, Bakawand (Via) Bastar-District(CG) VERSIIS / I. TheSlate ofChhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Schedule Caste. Schedule Tribe and Backward ClassWelfareDepartment, D.K.S.Bhavvan.Mantrataya, District- Raipur (C G) ^.2. IheCoinmissioner l'rib;i[ Wclfare Department. Schediile Caste. Schedule Tribe Development. District- Raipur (C G) ^ 3. 'l'he Assistant Commissioner, 'l'ribal Weltare Department Jagdalpur. District-Bastar (C G) ^.4. The Secretary. Vimal Vidya Ashrain lligh School. Mariguda, Chirgaon Post. Bakawand (Via) Bastar District. Chhattis&arh WRIT PET1T10N UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF 1HE CONST1TUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR THE 1SSUANCE OF WR1T IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC AND FOR THE APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECT10N/ DIRECT10NS 1. Particulars ofthe Petitioners :- As mentioned in the cause tille. 2. Particulars ofthe Respondents:- As slated abnve in llu- Cause 'I iile. 3. Particulars ofthe order asainst which the present petition is being filed:- ^. That the p^titioners are not challenging any particular order/directions but they are aggrieved by the inaction ofthe respondents Ibr iiol exteiiding Ihe benelit oi' ^ •<.-.. 36 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.32 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Ku. Thresiamma & Others RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Gowri (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Azad Siddique, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. . ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 7 day of January, 2011) 1. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are working in the 100% Government aided school, but have not been granted the full benefit of 5 pay scale. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered with the case decided by this Court on 9-2-2007 in W.P.No.698 of 2006 and at this stage the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw tHe present petition with liberty to file proper representation before the respondent authorities. Learned further submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities for deciding the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection if the petitioners make any such representation and the same is being decided in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty as aforesaid. In the eventuality of making any such representation by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this the same would be deiced by the competent authority within a further period of two months. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge