CF^ cro IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. /2009S;||tate PETITIONERS /•^ %y »f^w ^y €/^ '<y ^p^^ i^^^-^ |s| T^K^ '^->t\G1' Nandkishore Vaishnav S/o. Shri Shyambandhu Vaishnav, aged about- 40 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Bhikharimal, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) Mayadhar Patel S/o. Shri Hariram Patel, aged about- 43 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Gopalpur, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) Shailendra Rai S/o. Shri J.J. Ruprai, aged about- 42 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Vijaypur, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) Rajendra Mehar S/o. Shri P.P. Mehar, aged about- 45 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Rambhatha, Raigarh, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^"s 8, Smt. Rinku Rohini Rai W/o. Shri Jitendra Rai, aged about- 38 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Mitthumuda, Raigarh, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) Sushil Kumar Gupta S/o. R.K. Gupta, aged about-45 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Koriadadar, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) Bhanuram Rathia S/o. late Nanhi Ram Rathia, aged about- 45 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Adbahal, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) Rooplal Patel S/o. Shri Hetram Patel, aged about- 44 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Koyalanga, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) Yashwant Kumar Dansena S/o. Makar Dhwaj Dansena, aged about- 48 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School ^9^—'^^-.. • uy .'X<:X(' Panjri Plant, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 10. Smt. Pramila Shriwas W/o. RipusudanShriwas, aged about- 45 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Kasturba, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 11. Smt. Yamuna Jaiswal W/o. Rohit Kumar Jaiswal, aged about- 38 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Panjri Plant, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 12. Deepak Kumar Shukla S/o. Nand Kumar Shukla, aged about- 35 years, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Gopalpur, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) 13. Rohit Kumar Jaiswal S/o. Kedar Nath Jaiswal, aged about- 45 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Jorapali, Block and District- Raigarh (C.G.) 14. Smt. Munji Tirki W/o. Jaidan Tirki, aged about- 42 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Tarpali, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 15. Santosh Kumar Chauhan S/o. Sunau Ram Chauhan, aged about- 58 years, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Jamgaon, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 16. Pushpendra Rathore S/o. Chhedilal Rathore, aged about- 33 years, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Kalmi, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) 17. Kirti Kumar Naidu S/o. Ramarao Naidu, aged about- 34 years, Assistant Teacher, High School Nansia, Block & District- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) r\ Ml 2. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA ai S ? ; S Si s sSa .a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WntPetition (S) Mo_8L2 of 2009 Petitioners Nandkishore Vaishiiav & ofhers Versus Respondents State of Chliattisgarh & aaotber WRIT PTITION UNDER^gTJCL£_226_QFTHE_CQNST!TUTLQN QP.iNDIA (SB; Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoto J.) Sliri Aiciit Shanua, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri A. V. Shridaar, Paiiel Law^-er for fhe respondents/State. O R D_E_R LOral! (Passed ou ftiis 29th day ofJanuan'', 2010) V.T'/ifh. ttie consent of leamed counsel appeadng for ftie pai'ties, tlie oiatter is heard fiiially. 2. Leamed counsel appeariug for fhe petitioners submits that tiie petitioners are entifled to graat of tt.vo iiicreiuents as tliey have obtauied D.Ed. certi&cate on fheir own expenses. LeEU~ned counsel fLirtber subraits that the petitioners rnay be granted Uberty to raake a representation to the aufhorities for grant of ti.vo m.crerc.eiits pursiiaat to flie judgrae&t aj.id order passed by this Court m. Yash-want Kuniar Bharcidiuaj v. Munidpa] CoTp'oratwn, Durg and another1 an.cl a decisiou dated 15.12.2006 m W.P.fS.) No. 4130 of 2005, Gopesh Kumar Ve^Tjia vs. The State Goi't. of CMiattisgarh and aiiother. 3. The. notice was issued on 18.2.2009. As prayed, tavo weeks tinie was graiited to fhe respoadents,/ State to explahi asto wliy tlie petitiouers are not entitled to the beneflts under ttie order in Yasliwant Kum.ar Bharadwaj (siipra), which is a law aiid ' 2006(11) MPJR-CQ 96 —i o. has become final as the same remaias uachaUenged tiU date. Despite opportunity granted to the respondents/State, no reply has been illed. The Goveninient is under aa obURation to foliow flie law settled by tliis Court aad it is not tiecessaiy to approach fllis Court by each aiid ever)r 'einployee when tbe law has already been settled by this Covit. The eruployees, who are sitnitarly situated and have iiot approacbed t-he Court, niay be treated at par witll ot'tier eniployees, who have approached this Court. It is not necessaiy to approacli this Court for siiiulai' order. In view of tlie foregoiag reasons, fhis petition staads disposed of witll Ubert}r reserved to tlie petitioners, on ffae request of leamed counsel, to inake a represeutation. !f tiie represeatation is filed by the petitioners, the saiue inay be considered aad decided, in accordaace with law on its owa inerits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably wifhiii a period of eight weeks froiu flie date of receipt of flie representati.ca. No order s-sto costs. „.. i Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge i Th&kur