IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1284 of 2009 7^ Petitioners 1. 2. Versus Respondents 1, 2. 3. Smt Sadhaaa Dubey, W/o Saatosh £)ubey, aged about 45 years, presently posted aad workiiig as Assistaat Teacher, Sai'swati Kaaya Prioiaiy School, Khokho Para, Raipur, Distdct Raipur (CG), Sint, Sapna Tiwad, W/o Brajesh Tiwari, aged about 38 years, presentiy posted aad workiag Assistaat Teacher, Gtoveniment Primaiy School, Ram.sagar Para, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), State of Chhattisgarh, tlirough fhe Secretaiy, Department of Education/ D.K,S. BuUdmg, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Distdct Education OjBicer, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, Raipur, Distdct Raipur (CG) WRIT FTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONS'nTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajendra Tnpatlii, Advocate for fhe petitioners, Yashwant Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for fh.e respondents/ State. 1. 2. Q_R_D_E_R (Passed on this 23rd day ofMarch, 2009) Wifh fhe consent of learaed counsel appearing for the parties, tihte inatter is heard finally. Learaed counsel appearing fbr tiie petitioners subniits tibiat the petitioners are entitled to graat oftwo increments as fhey have obtained B,Ed./D,Ed. cerdficate on fheir own expenses dunng the ser^ice period. Learaed counsel further submits that tihie petitioners niay be graated Uberty to inake a representation to fhe authorities for graat of two mcrements pursuaat to fh.e judgment aiid order passed by this Court m fhe matter of Yashwant Kumar Bharadrvaj v. Munidpal Corporation, Durg r' N^^;^^ 2- 6. and another1 aad W.P.(S.) No. 4130 of 2005, Gopesh Kwnar Verma vs. The State Govt of Chhattisgarh and another. On 4,3.2009, iti spite of fhe opportunity graated to the State/respondents, ou fheir request, to lile response, no affidavit is filed. The State Goverainent is under aa obligation to follow fh.e law setUed by fhis Court aad it is not necessary to approach this Court by each aad eveiy employee when fhe law has already been settled by fhis Court. The einployees, who are snnilarly situated aiid have not approached fhe Court, inay be treated at par wifh ofher eniployees, who have approached this Court. It is not necessary to approach fhis Coiut for siniilar order, In view of fhe foregoiag reasons, tius petition staiids disposed of wifh Uberty reserved to the petitioners, on fhe request of learaed counsel, to niake a representation. If fhe representation is filed by fhe petitioners, fhe saine inay be considered aad decided, m accordance wifh law on its owu nierit as expeditiously as possible, preferably wifhia a period of eight weeks fronx fhe date of receipt of fhe repx'esentation. ConsequenUy, pending appUcations, if* aiiy, staad disposed of ThaJkur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge