e^) /'' SiNGLE WfSftis lat.ntss^ s'^^S^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl N0. ^M^ /2010 PETITIQNER O y .^t^ ^^5^ c''-^ .,»" ' <;<.< Shri S.L. Sahu S/o. Budhram Sahu, aged about : 68 years, (Retired Head Master) R/o. Village : Sakleri, (Baradwar), Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSU^ RESPONDENTS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). 2] The Director, School Education Department, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). 3] District Education Officer, Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ^ 11^11!]) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . u rr T C—78 sn^i^iil^iw wnw^rwtiw QuvyS (^ ^rsr ^|4|i(»iq^ ®Til<-i<i<o, Mcii^y; ..^(^...^..^^b an^TT^r (^pf^S?) TClIW^tosiK?! ^rafeFft^ iTreri 'S fest tfii^i< •^srRnan^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra iViohbn Shrivastava. J. 15-07-2010 Shri Pushpendra Kumar Pa<ei, counsel for the pedfioner. Learned counsei for the bsetitioner submitted that on account <rf petitioner's promotion on the pos( of Head Master Irom the post of Upper Divisfon Teacher, he was entit|ed to beneflt under Ruis 22-0 of the Fundamentai Ruies and accordi}igiy, his pay was iiabte to be fixed in accordance with the same by d'rantin9 benefit of inerements. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subm'rts|that this issue invoived in the petiUon has been decided by this Court in the 4ase of Ved Prakash Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decid^d on 27/030008 in W.P.(S) No.4891/08. Thereaiter, the petitioner submitted representation to rospondents vide Annexure P/2 which was foilowed |by another representation (Annexure P/3), but the same has not so Tar been cjeolded. Taking into consideration (he fact that the peUUoner has submitted representation and claiming benefl^ of order passed by thls Court, respondent shail take decision on represerjtation in accordance with law within a reasonabie period. in case, the petitioner is s^iii aggrieved and his grievamce is siiit not redressed, it would be open for| the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy, as may be availabie to hiiti under the law. With the aforesald observatjons, the petitfon is flnaliy disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohanShriv^tava Judge [tKH,^;"re;--..;-;:-ri lil.i.!