wwk i Single éench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT HILASPUR WRIT . PETITION IS) N032?) . - OF 201 1' 1 1. /Smt‘. Kalpna Dubey, W/o Shri Alok Kumar Dubeyl, aged about 47 years, R/o Vai:shali Nagar, Phase II, Krishna Kunj, Bilaspur (CG). / § 2. Ku. Savita Gaur, D/o Late Shri Ganpat Singh Gaur, aged about 50 years, R/o Ruprang Tailors, Masanganj, Bilaspur (CG). r i PETITIONERS : Versus RESPONDENTS : 1./State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Administration, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). / 2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG) through its Commissioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WW m W3? . MQSW 3W ‘\ § mm mzog mmm S a J 24-0$-2011 Ms‘ Sumta Jam, Panel Lawyer for he Statelrespondent N01 on advance copy. Heard Learned counsel far'the petition rs submitted that the petitioners are entitied to grant of current and appropr ate pay scale of the post of Lecturer aiong with arrears with eiTeot from 1 07—1997, when the petitioners were promoted to the post of Lecturer: Learne counsel further submits thatthe claim of identically situated Lecturers has alre dy been decided vide order dated 2Q— 03‘2006 in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2 3 (Smt. Kavita Tr'wart' vs. State of ‘ Chhattisgarh and another) He further ubmits that against the said order, the respondent No2 has fled Special Lea e Petition in the Supreme Court and though the Specral Leave Petition has een admitted there is a dlrectron for payment of 50% dues in that case Furth r submissmn of learned counsei is that of Similarly Situated Lecturers orders have been passed on 10-07_—2008 in > it Petition No.2756 of 2002(Chandra Bhushan Pandey & others vs, State o Chhattisgarh &others). by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, it would be proper to dire tthe respondent No.2 to consider the V resporident No2 who shaH consider appropriate deCiSion in the matter Tu mane WWW,Wins—Fs/14o—2/2011—1,so,ooo. , w ; z \ B Hon’ble Shn Mamndra Mohan Sh astav ShrIVarunendra Mishra counself rthe petmoners on the baSis of aforesaid orders, in cas Considering the submission ma petitioners claim. The petitioners may prefer detailed representation to the claim of the petitioners and take accordance with law ln case the petitioners grievance is not redressed would be open forthe petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be avai able to them under the law f With the aforesaid direction, the etition is‘finally disposed of. r e i ~