.5. I . '9'. ¢ Si‘ngieBe'nch IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(5)No. mgé /zoo9 / Smf. Prabha Rani Gupta, D/o Shri J.L.6up‘ra, Aged abou’r 52 year's, Presen’dy posTed as Principal Boys Higher Secondary School, Haldi Bazar, Block - pali, Dist. Korba-(C.G.) Pe’ri’rioner Versus / ’ S‘m‘re of Chhaf’risgar‘h Through — The Secretory Tribal Welfare Depor’rmenf, Mon‘rrolaya, /D.K.5. Bhowan, Raipur—(C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Chhm‘fisgarh Governmenl’ Raipur— (C.G.) (”The Assisfom‘ Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Dis? : Korba—(C.G.) 3. :1. Responden’rs ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT WRITS DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No.3196 of 2009 Smt. Prabha Rani Gupta PETITIONER VERSUS ./ RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shn Anll Smgh Rajput counsel for the petitioner Shrl Yashwant Smgh Thakur Dy AG for the respondents /State WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (13.08.2009) Whether the employees of the State Government are entitled for the benent of initial pay in the time scale of higher post on being appointed to another with greater responsibilities as per Fundamental Rule 22-D of the M.P. Fundamental Rules (for . convenience the "Rules"), is the question to be answered in this case. / 2. Petitioner’s’bontention in this case is that while working on the post of Head Master she was promoted to the post of Lecturer vlde order dated 11.1.1989 (Annexure P-2) and was required to discharge the greater responsibilities However as she was not given the benefits under Rule 22-D of the Rules she made‘ representations dated 17 2 1999 and 11 5 2009 (collectively marked i as annexure P—5) but till date they remain un responded to. lt Is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Fundamental Rules made by the Secretary of the State in Council under Section 96-B of the Government of lndia Act are applicable to the service l conditions of the government employees and as they have attained the status of rutes framed under Article 309‘ of the Constitution of‘ India, their supersession by the executive instructions is not permissible under the law. Lastly he submits that in an identicai petition being {\IV.P. (s) 1359/2007} the similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D by this Court and therefore the petitioner may also be granted the same relief on the ground of parity. 3. State counsel, on the other hand, supports the action of the respondents and submits that as the post of Lecturer has not been notified as one carrying higher responsibilities, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the said Rule. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in View the fact that the matter involving similar question has already been ‘ decided by this Court as mentioned above, this Court deems it just and proper to accord the said benefit to the petitioner also. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits or Fundamental Ruie 22-o. ' Sd/— 5. Petition allowed. V Pritinker Diwaker f Judge