IN THE HIGH CéURT 0F1CHHATTISGRRH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. ................. 2&3Lv.01? 2005 PETITIONERS d 1. D.N.Jha, S/o Late Shri Chitradhar Jha , aged about 62 years, occupation Planning Officer ( Yojna Adhikari), posted at O/ O District Education Officer Mahasamund resident of Ganjpata,Mahasamun7d ,Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). 2. S.H.Yajdani S/o Shri Sheikh Hussain, aged about 64, Retired Principal, Ski Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jhalap , District Matiasamund, resident of Ward No. 7, Railway Colony, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). 3. Prem Lal Yadav, aged about 59 years, S/o Hridai Lal Yadav, occupation service, lecturer, resident of Village Sarkataura , Post Sonasilli, Via Pithora, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). 4‘ B.B.Dubey S/o Shri Mangal Dubey, aged about 66 years, occupation Retired Assistant Director, Mahasamund, f/ resident of Ward No.4, Behind Jain Mandir, Bagbahara, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). 5. M.S.Bhar, aged about 54b years, S/o Baratu Ram Bhar, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Jhalap, District Mahasamund, resident of Village Raiturn, Tahsil and District MahaSamund (CG), K.P.Sahu , aged about 62 years, S/o Rati Ram Sahu, Lecturer, resident of Clubpara, Mahasamund, Behind Panchsheel Club, Ward No. 19, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS \ RESPONDENTS : O 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). 02. The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). District Education Officer, Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). RECEW {am MW” cLERK to A. G. BIL Asmg WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226i 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W HHGH CQURT OF 'CHHATTISGH AT BEPU LASR (#Eon. Mr.‘.£us€ice Pminker mwaker} Wri? Pei‘ition No.2632 6f 2005 DN. Jha and others. ‘ VERSUS L ‘ . FE‘ ETIONER \ s. / Smt. Renu Kochar caunsel fer the petitioners. ' Shri Shashank Thakur PL for ‘ respondentslS‘cate. I RespoNeENTS State of Chhattiegarh and other ' ! . I § K $ WRIT PETlTiON UNDER ARTHCLE 226122? OF ?HE CONSTITUTION OF iNDlA O R D E R i I (30 O7 2009) 1 I - I I I Case 0f Lhe petitioners whe are now retwed Is iha’t pner to d tllellr prometlon 0n the post of Iecturer they were working as Hea I MaIsterslADIS In the school education department but they have not been given the benefit as per Fundamental Ruie 22-D. . 2 ‘- Contention of the counset for tne petitioners is that the petitioners have made several representations (iXnnexure P 7) to P45) but they have not been given the said benefit, Further contention of the counsel for the netitioners is that the Fundamental Rules are made by the Secretary of $tate in Council under Section 96—8 of the Government of lndia Act, inoloding the orders issued by the Secretary of State, Government of India and Auditor Generai and the Supplementary Rules framed by‘the local Government which are applicable to ', the service conditions of government employees and have attained the status of ruies framed under Article 309 of the v Constitution of lndla Thus Fundamental Rule can not be ‘ \ superceded by any executive instructions g”) 3 tm counSel for the respondents/State opposes the. f o petitioners However he submits that the post of _ aster as weH as Lecturer carry the same pay scale ' o ed Masters are Ciass {H employees and the Lecturers ‘ r as t gazetted otfcerslemployees On Guery, whether ‘ - Mer can be posted as Lecturer if belonging ta the san’e J d tr Is no response and no document In support of the, . io s been flee Learnee counsel further eubmrts that, l ‘ e s lecturer has not been notlflecl as a post carrymgf r rspnsrblllty Again on ouerv as to whether there ls some ; l e o ify a partlcular post that oarnes higher responsrblllty ta el offers no response No document In support; ' reof has een frled r l heard counsel for the partles and perused the. plei a documents avaiiable on record -unsel for the parties do not dispute that the question nvolve in tis petition has atready been decided by this Court ' id or dated 27.3.2008 passed in WP. 'No. 18/2003. oi o counsel forrthe petitioners as the case of the eio also simiiar in nature, they are also entitled for the a benit onithe ground of parity. , sme ef seuently, for the ”grounds and reasons mentioned in rer passed in W P No 18/2003 this Court does not find as to take a different View Accordingly, the petition is owe terms of oroer dated 27.3.2008 passed in WP. No. 2. etitioners would be entitled for all the benefits of, dental Rule 22-D from the date of their joining on the motial post ie Lecturer ‘ including the oonsequentiai benefits rived pursuant there to m1 . No orer as to costs. i Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker .i ' .‘ Judge _ X ‘ Per can l 1 ‘ p ayer f Lhe ’ Head M thugh Ha r are Cls Ltead sLe care hee contentn ha th pot 0r A highe eo systm t not r Ste couns . l the b r4 have r v l adngs no l ‘ . ,x‘Co t id h 3 ve rde iAccrdng t pttiners is 1 i 6. Conq ‘ the od r any reon 2 alld in 18i003 P Funam proon de > 6 d