mmu M325L \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) Nc§g3z2oo7 PETITIONER(S) / 1. Smt Anjana Rekha Shukla, age 47 year W/o Anil Shukla / OM / 6, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra,Bi1aspur (CG) Ku. Pushplata’Mohre Near Head Post Offlce, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Devalopment nd Administration Mantralaya, KS Bhawan, Raipur (G) D C Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tough its Commissioner, Corporation Building, Nehr Chowk, Bilaspur () wwm. w .a J PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 01. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS : As stated above in the cause title. R VERSUS a hr u CG HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava1 J. WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5604 of 2010 achin Sharma and others Petitioners S Versus C Rgspondents State of hhattisgarh. and another WRIT PETITION (S) NO.68O of 2007 Petitioners Shri Anil Shua an anoter Versus Respondents tate of Chhattisgarh and anothe S r WRIT PETmON (S) No.683'of 2007 Petitioners Smt. Anjana Rekha 'Shukla and , another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Writ Petition under Articie 2261227 of the Constitution of India Respondents Present:— Shri V. R. Tiwari,‘ Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the respective petitioner. Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri B. L. Sahu, counsel appears on behalf of Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Panel Lawyer for respective respondent-Corporation. Shri VinayIPandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL :ORDER (Passed on this 85E" of July, 2011) This common order shalt govem disposal of'W.P.(S)No.5604 of 3:310, .W.P.(S)No.680 & 683 of 2007, as issue involved in all these writ petitions is simlar. i 2. The petitioner in these writ petitions claimed similar eneht as b has been granted to Smt. Kavita Tiwari by this Court vide order dated @ kl d h 29-03-2006 in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2003 (Smt. Kavita Tiwari vs. state of Chhattlsgarh and another). 3. Learned counsel for the reSpectiye petitioner submitted that against the saidnorder, the respcndent-Corporation has med Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, and though. the petition her been admitted; there is a direction by the Supreme Court for paymrt- g of 50% due in that case. Further submission of learned counsel for try-Veg respective petitioner'is that on the basis of order oflthis Court in Sm: Kavita Tiwari’s case, in cases of similarly situated Lecturers, order. have been paSsed by this Court on V1 0-07-2006 in Writ Petition No.2756 of 2002 (Chandra Bhushan Pandey & others vs.‘ State of Chhattisgarh & others) and in case of Smt. Usha Gupta. and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another in Writ Petition No.4084 of 2003, decided by this Court on 28-09-2010 along' with two other connected writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Smt. Kavita TiWari has been paid 50% back wages, the respondent-Corporation should also consider their cases in the matter of grant of 50% of the benefit of regular pay Scale as has been granted to Smt. Kavita Tiwari. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in W.P.(S)No.5604 of 2010 prayed that he may be granted some time to file reply whereas learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation in other two connected writ petitions has opposed the relief prayed for by the petitioner. o ; 5. The issue raised in ail these writ petitions have already been considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Kavita Tiwari (supra). The . matter is now pending in the Supreme Court and there is a direction for payment of 50%.back wages to Smt. Kavita Tiwari by athe Supreme Court. it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that in the ‘ case of simiiarly situated (Smt. Kalpna Dubey and another kvs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) in W.P.(S)No.327‘1 of 2011, the writ petition was finaiiy disposed off vide order dated 24-06—2011 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the petitioners ciaim. 6. Taking into consideration the entire aspectof the matter, instead of keeping the matter pending, and further taking into consideration that this Court has finally disposed off the case of Smt. Kalpna Dubey, these petitions are also finally disposed off with a direction to the respondent—Corporation to consider the petitioners grievance. The respective petitioner may prefer detail representation to the respondent No.2, who shall consider the claim of the respective petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. ln case,’ grievance of the respective l petitioner in aforestated writ petitions is not redressed, it would be open for the respective petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them, under the law. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. / Tumane