4^^ o^ HIGttCOURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BtLASPUR WP. fS)No.1908 of 2008 Petitioner Bhagavanjya Bai, W/o. Late Bahadur Yadav, aged about 55 years, R/o. Vlllage Bacherwar. Pandra. Distt. Bilaspur. (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatlissarh, Through its Socretary, Panchayat & Rural Devetopment Department. D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Block Development Officer, ofRce of ttie Block Dsvelopment OfRcer, Tribal Development (Block), Pendra, Dlstt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Rurat Engineering Service (R.E.S.), Office of Development Commissioner, Raipur 4. Chief Executive OfRcer, Rural Engineering Service, Office of Rural Engineering Service (R.E.S.) Divjsion Marwahi, Head quarter Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur. WRIT PETiTOIN UNDERARTICE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Singte Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2008) 1. Wjth the consent of teamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finalty. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is tegady weddect wife of Late Bahadur Yaday, who died on 2.1.2008 (Annexure P/8). Husband of the petitioner Late Bahadur Yadav was initialiy appointed on the post of Khalasi on dally wages on 1.2.1985 6. Thakur and he was continuously working on the said post up to 11.5.1^4. Vide order dated 11.5.1994 (Annexure P/2) he was granted regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.2.1988. The benefit of regular increment was atso granted to him. Pursuant to the order granting regular pay scale, Late Bahadur Yadav was also paid arrears of pay. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.3.1998 (Annexure P/3), the order clated 11.5.1994 (Annexure P/2) was withdrawn and he was being pakl daily wages. Learned counsel appearing for the petStioner submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 27.2.2007 in Writ PetitJon (S) No. 1861 of 2005 (Ram Dulare Prajapati & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and other connected matters. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the husband of the petitioner had already submitted a representation on 11.10.2007 (Annexure P/5) before the authorify concemed but till date said representation has not been decided. The judgment and order passed by this Court in the matter of Ram Dulare Prajapati & others (supra) was not in prsonam but in rem, thus, the same would be applicable to all the simUariy situated candidates. In view of the foregomg, this petition js ajlowed in the same terms i.e. the husband of the petitioner is entitted to regular pay scate from the date the same was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 16.3.1998 (Annexure P/3). No order asto costs. —— Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge