-^' HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1212 of2009 Petitioner Yashwant Kumar Saliu, S/o Udal Prasad Sahu, aged about 34 years, Assistant Teacher, Goveminent Prmiaiy School, Machabhat, Development Block-Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) Vei-sus -<- hlNNS^: Respondents 1. 2. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, Departiiient of Education, D.K.S. Bhawasi, Raipur (C.G.). Distnct Education Officer, Raipur, Distorict Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, Developiaent Block- Siiaga, Distiict Raipiu' (CG) WRIT PTmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Ms Smita Ghai, Paael Lawyer for the respondents/State* Q RDEK (Passed on this 10th day ofApril, 2009) 1. With fhe consent of leaaied counsel appearmg for fhe parties, the matter is heard fmally. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for tlie petitioner subxaits that fhe petitioner is entitied to graat of two iacreiaents as he has obtaiaed D.Ed. certitica.te on his own expenses durmg fhe service period, Learaed counsel iurther submits fhat fhe petitioner inay be graated Uberty to m.ake a representation to fhe aufhorities for graut of two io.creiaents pursuaat to the judgment aad order passed by this Couil ia the matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj v. Muniapal Corporation, Durg and another1 and a decision dated 15.12.2006 in W.P.(S.) No, 4130 of 2005, Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. Itie State Govt. of Chhattisgarh andanother.. 12006(H) MPJR-CG 96 -L- On 2.3.2009, m spite of fhe opportLinity grauted to ftxe State/respondents, on fheir request, to file response, no aGEidavit is tlled. The State Goveraiaent is under aa obUgation to follow fhe law settled by fhis Court aad it is not uecessaiy to approach fhis Court by each aad evexy einployee when the law has already been setUed by this Court. The einployees, who are similarly situated aad have not approached fhe Court, inay be toreated at par wifh other eBiployees, who have approached this Court. It is not necessary to approach tius Court fbrSimilar order. In view of fhe foregoiag reasons, this petition staads disposed of wifh Hberty reserved to fhe petitioner, on fhe request of learaed counsel, to niake a representation. If fhe representation is filed by the petitioner, the saine inay be considered aad decided, ia accordance witii law on its own mierits as expeditiously as possible, preterably wifhia a period of eight weeks froin fhe date ofreceipt offhe representation. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge