9A o 0 @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT’ BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH \ WRIT PETITION NO QQC‘% OF 2004 PETITIONER w .i.~"’o¢\m 4‘ [Dwarika lBhagawat Prasad Prasad Kashayp Kashyap, S/o Agedi Shri ‘» aabout 4O years, Occupation- Asstt. Teacher, Government Girls Primary SSchool, Madanpur, Block—Bilha KDistrict— Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSES fState of Chhattisgarh WThrough : Secretary School [Education Department D.K. Bhavan FRaipur (C.G.) 2. lDistrict Educational Officeri EBiiaspur(C.G) 3. {Block Education OfficerL Bilha [Distt — Bilaspur (CG) ;,;ya, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAI I .u. 2,7 _ ? w SE3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W.P.No. 376812004 Kanta Prasad Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P.No. 3698/2004 DWarika PraSad Kashayp Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others w.p. No.3734/2oo4 Bali Ram Dewaulgan Vs. Stato of Chhath'sgarh and others W.P. No.3997/2004 , Om Prakash Fatal Vs, State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: D1; Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Government Advocate for the State] w respondents. ORAL ORDER (12.10.2006) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. By way of these writ petitions, tiled under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioneis have prayed for a diieetion to the respondents to pay the increments and count ‘ seniority on the basis of their initial appointments in light of the V% decision rendamd by the learned Statc Administrative Tribunal}, Jabalpur in O.A.No. 1452/ 1998 (Harish Chandra Singh 6r. others Vs. State of M.P. 85 others) dated 31. 1.2000. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in many writ petitionsJ tiled by the similarly placed persons, this Court has issued dinech'ous for making representations before the competent authority and the competent authority has been directed to decide their representations within the stipulated. pen‘od granted by this Court. He further submits that those writ petitions are W.P.No.4926/2006 and W.P.No.3883/ 2006. He makes a limited prayer that these petitions may also be disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a detailed representation befom the competent authority and. the competent authority may be / directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This limited prayer, made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court; the limited. prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable. The prayer is allowed. The petitioners are allowed to make a detailed representation within a period of two weeks from today to the concerned authority, raising all their grievances and if such a. representation is tiled, in tern, the concerned authority shall decide the said representation in an objective manner Within a. . period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation v 7 whmvnm. ._ i. — i sunita -3/ Q) after considering all the points raised by the pefitiongrs and faking into account fh€ order dated 31.1.2000 passml by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No. 1452/ 1998. With the aforesaid. directions, all the writ petitions stand finally disposed of. No order as to cost. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. sal— Sinha Sm“1 Kuma‘” Judge \