C^r- 'i^-^0 SISfiix S»C^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^-6oS OF 2010 PETITIONERS : ^ <r ^ / ^ ^/u^ o ^ (^y ^- .t°.; ^ ^y: •^ /^ .y <<:" / 1. Sachin Sharma, S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Sharrna, aged about - 47 years, R/o Rajesh Bhawan, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur (C-G). ^2. Sadanand Patel, S/ o Late Shri Lilarriber Patel, agecl about 57 years, R/o 'Lilamber' Devnandan Nagar, Phase - 2, Bilaspur (CG). / 3. Anand Kumar Shelar, S/o Late Shri Lakhan Rao Shelar, aged about 53 yeai-s, R/o GV 70, Nehru Nagar, Opposite MIG 1/2, Bilaspur (CG). <4. Babulal Patel, S/o Late Shri Anand Rarn Patel, <iged about 52 years, R/o House No.55, Rohini Vihar, Green Park Colony, Bilaspur (CG). /5. Anil Sharma, S/o B.P. Sharma, aged about 50 yecir's, R/o Sarju Bagicha.n, Masanganj, Bilaspur (CG). ^6. Ram Krishna Lcd Dewanga-n, S/o Late Shri T.R. Dewangan, aged about 47 years, R/o Rohini Vihar, Green Park Colony, Bilaspur (CG). / 7. Ajit Shukla, S/o Late Shri Munidranath vShukla, aged about 48 yeaj's, R/o Mangla Chowk, Behind Sharda Coffee House, G<anga Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). 8. ^9. -10. ^' 11. 12. Onkar Prasad F)andey, S/o Bhushan Prasad Pandey, aged about 52 years, R/o Jaisri Bhawan, Milan Chowk, Kududan, Bilaspur (CG). Dhruv Singh Thakur, S/o Late Shri Nain Singh Thakur, aged about 53 years, R/o Brihaspati Bazar, In front of F-Ianuman Temple, Bilaspur (CG). Mohd. Aslam Khan,, S/o Late Shri Ahmed Gaffar Khan, aged about 55 years, R/o Salfa House, (CG). J i.;i n i I..ine , Bi\aspur Smt. Archna Patel, W/o Babu Lal Patel, aged about 47 years, R/o House No.55, Rohini Vihar, Green Park Colony, Bilaspur (CG). Herison George, S/o Late Shri George Herri, aged about 58 years, R/o Sarin 284/16, Depu Para, E^laspur (CG). RE^SPONDENTS : .^"*' /" y^ \ ^. l^?."j ^•/ .';^, '^'^i^y Versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarli, Through the Secretaiy, Department of Urban Development and Administration, DPCS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). ^2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG) through its Commissioner. WmT PETn'IONUNDER ARTXCLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Petitioners Respondents Petitioners Respondents Petitioners Respondents WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5604 of 2010 Sachin Sharma and others Versus Stateof Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (S) N0.680 of 2007 Shri Anil Shukla and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.683 of 2007 Smt. Anjana Rekha Shukla and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India Present:- Shri V. R. Tiwari, Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the respective petitioner. Shri Vihay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri B. L. Sahu, counsel appears on behalf of Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Panel Lawyer for respective respondent-Corporation. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 05th ofJuly, 2011) This common order shall govern disposal of W.P.(S)No.5604 of 2010, W.P.(S)No.680 & 683 of 2007, as issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar. 2. The petitioner in these writ petitions claimed similar benefit as has been granted to Smt. Kavita Tiwari by this Court vide order dated ^ ^,.,,..^^^^"^. ^i •.^;^ ^ :i i ..,'" ,^ -Z-— c'^ 29-03-2006 in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2003 (Smt. Kavita Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another). 3. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner submitted that against the said order, the respondent-Corporation has filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, and though, the petition has been admitted; there is a direction by the Supreme Court for payment of 50% due in that case. Further submission of learned counsel for the respective petitioner is that on the basis of order of this Court in Smt. Kavita Tiwari's case, in cases of similarly situated Lecturers, orders have been passed by this Court on 10-07-2006 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 petitionshas opposed the relief prayed for by the petitioner. {^ 3 5. The issue raised in all these writ petitions have already been considered by this Court in the case 6f 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 the Supreme Court. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that in the case of similarly situated (Smt. Kalpna Dubey and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) in W.P.(S)No.3271 of 2011, the writ petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 24-06-2011 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the petitioners claim. 6. Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, instead of keeping the matter pending, and further taking into consideration that this Court has finally disposed off the caseof 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. In case, grievance of the respective 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. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Tumane