COC 7%7/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMS) No. W38 /2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Kr. PETITIONER ’ifiariram Naik S/o Shri Dileshwar Prasad Naik aged about 51 years Upper Division Teacher Govt. New Middle School, Nawagoan Block— Kharsiya, District— Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. (jassistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deportment, Raigarh District—Raigarh (C.G.) / 3. The Block Education Officer, Block- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ' etiu'oner Ham Naik VérsuS R€sp0nd€nts STate of Chhatfisgarh 6a others A (SB: Hon’blC Shn' Saijsh K. Agnihotu‘ J.) Shl‘i Anil Mourya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Ro, Pand Lawyer for the respondents/ State‘ (Passed on this 28th day of January, 2010} With the consent of learned counsel appearing for he parties, the matter is heard inay fll Lemned counsel appearin for he petitioner submits that the petitioner 1's entitled o grant of two increments as he has obtained D.Ed. certificate on his own expenses during the service period. Learned Counsel urther submits tha: th Lation to the authorities for grant of two increments pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Yashwant Kumar Bharadwaj u Munia‘paj Corporation, Durg and anotherl decision dated 15.12.2006 in W.P.(S.) Gopesh Kumar Verma vs. The Stqte Goa/t. another. The f t e petitioner may be granted liberty to make a represew and a No. 4130 of 2005, of Chhctttisgarh and to State Government is under an obligation to follow the law settled by this Court and it is not necessary to approach this Court by each and every employee when the law has already W i 2005(11) MPJR—CG 95 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Pamela 5} N0. 7138 of 2009 P ma WRIT PTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI y ORDERQOrall t g t t 9% ,—~1_’ been settlsd by this Court. Th€‘6mploy€es, who are similarly situated and have not appmached ths Court, may be twated at par with other employ€es, who havs approached this Court, It is not necsssaiy to approach this Coult for similar ord€r. 131 View of the foragoing reasons, this petition stands dissposod of with liberty rosorved to tho peiitioner, on the raquest of leemmd counsol, to make a rapresentatlon. If the myrasentation is filed by tho petitioner, the same may be cohsidered and decided, in accordance with law on ite owm merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date 0f receipt of the representation. No order asto costs. ‘H , *%o--~e-~m~~‘ 3d]- m Thakur Satish K. Agriihmri ;~ v “Jedge ' ' H