c^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. OF 2011 PETITIONERS : T*->"' .''.'- «•'•' ^' ^^ Al.-< Ar^>^ ^y^^y^ 3, r41-' ..^ y>w .\\ Shyam Das Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Ramtahal Agrawal, aged about 50 years, Occupation Lecturer in Devkinandan Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur (CG), R/o A-44, Behind Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). Smt. Bharti Tiwari (before marriage Bharti Mishra), W/o Dr. Ashok Tiwari, aged about 55 years, presently working as Lecturer in Munnulal Shukla Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). Smt. Vijay Laxmi Tiwari, W/o Dinesh Tiwari, aged about 55 years, presently working as Lecturer, in Munnulal Shukla Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, R/o Gond Para, Bilaspur (C(5). Versus RESPONDENTS ^^T^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Administration, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG) through its Commissioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB_:_HQH'B£E_MR. JITSTICE.PRITINKERDiWAK^ 'Sf.P.iSI.NO. 7670/2011 S Shyam Das Asg-awal 8s Others RESPOKDBKT! versus State of Chhattisgarh Another Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, counsel for the petiticners. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P. L. for the State. Shri Matin Siddiqui, counsei forresp. N0.2. (15.12.2011) Orievance of the petitioners in the present petition are that though they are entitied for appropriate pay scale on the post of lecturer along with aJl the arrears the same has been denied to them. Counsel for the petitioners submits that their case is squarely covered by thejudgment ofthis Court in W.P. No. 4003/03 in the matter of Ssnt. Kavita TIwari Vs. State of Cbhattisgarh & Anotber and therefore at this stage they may be permitted to withdra.w this petition however direction may be issued to the respondent No. 2 to decide the pendiilj representation (Annexure P/2) ofthe petitioners. Counsel for the respondent N0.2 submits that iet the petitioners make a fresh representation to the respondent N0.2 and the same wouid be decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuaiity of filing fresh detaiied representation by the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, it is expected from the respondent N0.2 to decide the same as expeditiously as possibie preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said representation. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is raade clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authoritv concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, _——. - Sd/- Pritiiiker Diwaker ] le