SiNGS.E BE'IICH (-. (-^3rf IN THE HIGH COU'RT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRCT pETmoN(s) PETTTIONERS ^r \ ^^ ^^- ^ ^s^ ......s@<"'' >..-M^ OF 2007 I. Kaushal Chandrakar,son of shri Harakh Ram Chandrakar, aged about 36 years. ^2. Khamman Lal Chandrakar, son of late shri Bishat Lal Chandrakar, aged about 43 years. ^.\y /-'-'<> ^ ^"z^ o-' ^-^ ^t- ^3. l^ 8 .< U o /<•" 1^,'A'" y*/5i B w. '% 1 -sf^!.!.': Ramnarayan Chandrakar ,son of Shri Kathu Rara Chandrakar ,aged about 58 years. Satbir Singh son of shri Har Dutt Singh,aged about 35 years. smt. Bhuwaneshwari shukla.wife of om Kumar shukla.aged about 36 years. Km. Renuka sharma, daughter of Shri Ram Prasad sharma.aged about 29 years. Ashish Borkewar.son of shri D.R.Bortewar ,aged about 32 years Rajeshwar Chandrakar son of shri Raghunath Prasad Chandrakar,aged about 26 years Dr. Jeevan Lal Chandrakar ,son of shri Dau Lal Chandrak.ar ,aged about 30 years. All are working as Assistant Professor at shantri Bai Arts , Commerce and science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund(C.G.) V E R SUS © • 2 • • c* < RESPONDENTS s •^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh.Through Secretary,Higher Fducatison, D.K.s.Bhai<an,Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Dlrector, Hlgher Educatlon.Directorate , Chhattlsgarh.Raipur. 3» Collector,Mahasamund, Distrlct Mahasainund,(C.G. ) ,4. Vice-Chancellor. Pandit Ravi shankar shukla, Unj.versity.Raipur(C.G.) /'5. shantrl Bai Arts ,ComF(serce and science College ,Through its Principal.Mahasamund.District- Mahas araundf C.G.) ,/ WRTT PETITION UITOER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COKSTITUTION OF IMDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. IS} No. 29lof 2007 Petitioueis Respondents Versus Kaushal Chandrakar & ofhers State ofChhattisgarh & ofbers Sin^e Bench : HonTile Mr. Justice Satish K. AffaXhotxl. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondeats Np. 1 to 3. None for fhe respoudents No. 4 and 5. ^^ ORDER (Passed on this IQ*11 (iay of.Jamiaiy, 2007} 1. Leareied counsel appearing for fhe petitioners submits that the petitioners were duly appointed in accoidance with ttie oriers passed on difFerent dates i.e. 15.5.2005, 1.8.1998, 1.8.2003,20.7.2002, 1.10.1993, 1.9.1994.. 1.8.1997, and 1.8.1999. The petitioners have been workini continuously on their respective posts in fhe respondent No.5 CoUege. The petitioners have been denied fheir pay scales since Deceinber, 2005. The petitioners have ffled a complaint to the Vice ChanceUor on 21.9.2006 (Annexure P/13) but fhe same has not been decided till date. 2. In view of fhe above, the petitionera are aUowed to make a detailed represeatetion, in categorical teruis, to the respondent No.4 wifhin a period of 15 days from today and the respondeiit No.4 is directed to consider aad decide the representation, if any, iri accordance with law wittun a periodpfsix weeks froni the date ofrcceipt offhe reprcsentation alongwith a copy ofthis order. 3. With the above direction, Ihis petition stauds disposed of. No order as to costs. Thfllmr Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ~-f a ~r-^,.-;35ass-^