Cf’agml. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU w.P.(S)N0. 6W? /2007 Shri Anil Shukla, S/o Shri C.L.Shuk1a, Aged about 43 years, R/o M/6, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra¢ Bilaspur (CG) Smt. Meeta Shrivastava, W/o Shli V.K.Shrivastava, Aged about 45 years, R/o Mahamaya Vihar, Warehouse Road, Bilaspur (CG) PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Local Self Department: DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Bilaspur (CG) vfv~A u PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22§OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5604 of 2010 acn arm nd others Petitioners Shi Sha a Versus State of Chhattigarh and another s Shri il hukia another Versus tate of hhattisgarh and anothe S C r Sm. Anjana‘ Rekha Shukla and . another Vu erss State o Chattisarh and nother f hg a of India Writ Petition under Articie 2261227 of the Constitution Present: i u o Ma Si h L. S co Kaaha wer ece - Shr V. R. Tiwari,' Shri Vinod Deshmkh, counsel for the respective petitiner. Shri Vina-Pandey, Pan Lawyer for e ate. y el th St Shri teen ddiqui, Sri B. ahu, unsel appears on behalf of Shri A. S. chhwa, Panel Lay for resptiv reSpondent—Corporation. ORAL oRDER (Passed on this o5“ of Juiy, 2011) This common order shall govern disposal of_W.P.(S)No.5604 of imo, .W.P.(S)No.680 & 683 of 2007, as issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar. The petitioner in these writ petitions claimed similar benefit as has been granted to Smt. Kavita Tiwari by this Court vide order dated 2. @ Rg_spondents WRIT PETITION (S) NO.680 of 2007 An S and Petitioners Respondents WRIT PETITION (S) N0.683 of 2007 t ' Petitioners Respondents 29-03-2006 in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2003 (Smt. Kavita Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another). 3. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner submitted that against the saidnorder, the respondent-Corporation has tiled Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, and though, the petition he been admitted; there is a direction by the Supreme Court for payms‘; of 50% due in that case. Further submission of learned counsel for t‘v‘v,/ respective petitioner'is that on the basis of order ofthis Court in $es> a Kavita Tiwari’s case, in cases of similarly situated 'Lecturers, order. have been passed by this Court on ‘10-07-2006 in Writ Petition No.2756 of 2002 (Chandra Bhushan Pandey & others vs, State. of Chhattisgarh & others) and in case of Smt. Usha Gupta and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition No.4084 of 2003, decided by this Court on 28-09-2010 along with two other connected writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Smt. Kavita Tiwari has been paid 50% back. wages, the respondent-Corporation should also’ consider their cases in the matter of grant of 50% of the benefit of regular pay scale as has been granted to Smt. Kavita Tiwari. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in W.P.(S)No.5604 of 2010 prayed that he may be granted some time to file reply whereas learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in other two connected writ petitions has opposed the relief prayed for by the petitioner. o 5. The issue raised in all these writ petitions have already been considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Kavita Tiwari (supra). The . matter is now pending in the Supreme Court'and there is a direction for payment of 50% back wages to Smt. Kavita Tiwari by ethe Supreme Court. it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of similarly situated (Smt. Kalpna Dubey and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) in W.P.(S)No.3271 of 2011, the writ petition was nnally disposed off vide order dated 24-06-2011 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the petitioners claim. Tumane 6. Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, instead of keeping the matter pending, and further taking into consideration that this Court has finally disposed off the case of Smt. Kalpna Dubey, these petitions are also finally disposed off with a direction to the. respondent—Corporation to consider the petitioners grievance. The respective petitioner may prefer detail representation to the respondent No.2, who shall consider the claim of the respective petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. In case,’ grievance of the respective petitioner in aforestated writ petitions is not redressed, it would be open for the respective petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them, under the law. twia 7. There shall be no order as to costs. // s“{‘qg$ ,. (“K 6:;yyova“ $§§§3°¢$¢