INTHEHIGHCOURTOPCHHATI'ISGARH:BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1285 of 2009 Petitioners 1. Viaod Sadaagi, S/o Late Shn S.K.Sadaagi, aged about 38 years, presenfly posted and workiag as Head Master, Govemraent Prmiary School, Beladula, District Raigarh (CG). 2. S2iit. Saiiyogita Tripafhi, W/o Gopal Tiwari, D/o S.P.Tripafhi, aged about 38 years, presently posted aad workmg as head Master, Goverainent Prmiaiy „ School, Gen/aai, District Raigarh (CG). 3. Shailesh Sharma, S/o Shashi Bhusan Shaiina, aged about 41 years, presently posted aad workio.g as Head master, Govertinient Piiiiiaiy School, ChtraipaM, District Raigarh (CG) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, Department of Education, D.K,S. Buildiag, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Distdct Education Ofl&cer, Raigarh, Distnct Raigarh (CG) Block Education Officer, Raigai'h, Distdct Raigarh (CG) WRIT PTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Honlole Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajendra Tripafhi, Advocate for the petitioners, Yashwant Siagh Thakui*, Deputy Advocate General for fhe respondents/ State, 1. 2. Q RDER (Passed on this 23rd day ofMarch, 2009) Wifh fhe consent of leanied counsel appearing for fhe parties, the niatter is heard fiiiatly. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners subiaits that tlie petitioners are entitled to graiit oftoyo mcrements as ftiey have obtaiaed B.Ed./D,Ed. certtficate on fheir own expenses during fhe service period. Learaed coiuisel further submits fhat fhe petitioners raay be granted Uberty to inake a representation to 4. 6. 2-. (y? fhe autiiorities for grant of two iacrexnents pursuaat to the judgnient aiid order passed by this Court ia fhe matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Munidpal Corporation, Durg and anoiher1 and W.P.(S.) No. 4130 of 2005, Gopesh Kvmar Verma vs. The State Govt of Chhattisgarh arid another On 4.3,2009, ia spite of fhe opportunity graated to fhe State/respondents, on fheir request, to tlle response, no affidavit is filed. The State Goveniment is under aii obMgation to foUow the law settled by fhis Coiut and it is not necessaiy to approach fhis Court by each and every employee when fhe law has already been setUed by this Court. The einployees, who are similarly situated aad have not approached fh.e Court, niay be treated at par with other eniployees, who have approached this Court. It is not necessary to approach this Court for similar order. In view offtie foregoiag reasons/fhis petition staads disposed of with Mberty reserved to the petitioners, on fhe request of leamed counsel, to nialre a representation. If ttie representation is filed by fhe petitiouers, the same laay be considered and decided, in accordance with law on its own uierit as expeditiously as possible, preterably wifhia a period of eight weeks from. fhe da.te of receipt of fhe representation. Consequenfly, pending appllcations, ifaay, stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur ' 2006(11) MPJR-CG 96