HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPVR Wrif Petitioii (S) No. 4095 of2008 (^ PETITIONER : Smt. Meena Singh aged about 52 years, wife of Shri Sliivmangal Singh, Resident of Primary School, North Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The District Education Ofilcer, Korea, District Korea 3. Administrator/Headmaster, Primary School, North Jhagrakliand, District Korea (CG). 4. The Director, Directorate, Public Institution, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). (^-RIT PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226/227 OF 1BE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hoii'Me Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R,K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL.ORDER (Passed on 29th day ofJu3y, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for heai-ing finally. 2. The petitioner claims to be an Assistant Teacher, working in I.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG), run and managed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner without giving details as to what is the natiire of the School, why the teachers are at par with other teachers, has filed this petition, praying that the respondents be directed to grant benefits of5 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. This Court has already considered and decided the same issue on 06.02.2007 in the matter of A. Lall (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others' (W.P. No. 4108 of2005) and other connected matters. It is not necessary' to approach this Court directly vvhen the law on a particular issue has already been settled. The petitioner may make a representation to the coiicemed authorities, if so advised, in the light of law settled by this Court in the matter of A. Lall (Smt) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Supra). 6. This petition is accordmgly disposed of with the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahu '• 2007 (1) BLJ 265