HIGHCpURTOF,CIfflATTISGARH_Arr_BLLASPU.R Writ Petitioaa (S) Ne. 4098 oflQQS PETITIONER : Ashok Kumar Yadava, aged about 38 years, son of late Shri Ramdhani, Resident ofI.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, DistrictKorea(CG). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The District Education Officer, Korea, District Korea 3. Administrator/Principal, I.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG). 4. The Director, Directorate, Public Institution, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). (?v7RIT PETITION LTsDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrfUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K, Asmhotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Jaisvval, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29th day ofJuiy, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the inatter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner claims to be an Assistant Teacher, working in I.E.M. School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (CG), mn and managed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner without giving details as to what is the natiire of the School, why the teachers are at par with other teachers, has filed this petition, pmying that the respondents be directed to grant benefits of5al Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 3; Be that as it niay, it is difficult to decide the issue involved for want of adequate materials with regard to grant of 5 Pay Commission to the employees. Sahu This Court has already considered and decided the same issue on 06.02.2007 in the matter of A. Lall (Smt.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1 (W.P. No. 4108 of2005) and other connected matters. 5. It is not necessaiy to approach this Court directly when the law on a particular issue has already been settled. The petitioner may make a representation to the concemed authorities, if so advised, in the light of law settled by this Court in the matter ofA. Lall (Smt) Vs» State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Supra). 6. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above stated liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2007 (1) BLJ 265