^^.^ ..- ^ - ^G<; ^' •HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPVR '^ PETITIONER Writ Petition (S) No. 4093 of2008 : Arun Kumar Sriwastava aged about 56 years, son ofLate Shri Bajrang Prasad, Resident of I.E.M. School, Jhagrakliand, District Korea (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The District Education Officer, Korea, District Korea 3. Admmistmtor/Principal I.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG). 4. The Director, Directorate, Public Institutioii, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). (WRIT PETITION LTNDER ARHCLE 226/227 OF TEffi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon?bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lavvyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 29U1 day ofJisly, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearing finally. 2. The petitioner claims to be an Assistant Teacher, working in I.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG), nm and managed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner without giving details as to what is the nature of the School, vvhy the teachers are at par with other teacliers; has fiied this petition, praying that the respondents be directed to grant benefits of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 3. Be that as it may, it is difficult to decide the issue involved for want of adequate materials with regard to grant of 5 Pay Commission to the employees. Sahu sp' 4. This Court has already considered and decided the same issue on 06.02.2007 in the matter of A. I.all (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1 (W.P. No. 4108 of2005) and other connected matters. 5. it is not necessaiy to approach this Court directly when the law on a particular issue has already been settled. The petitioner may make a representation to the concemed authorities, if so advised, in the light of law settled by this Court m the matter ofA. Lall (Smt) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Supra). 6. This petition is accordingly disposed ofwith the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1 ^2007 (1) BLJ 265