^,,uor tllSBlfc T-' &>"3 Sui :'''-° nri«i'ftM fjt.Xte.f' ^ .^pi' IN T»1E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ PetiUojiNO. //^^ / 2006 Service matter PETITIONER /' Smt. Nirmala Banjare @ Ku. Nirmala Shande .-••''r\»^ Aged aboyt 34 years ,.-'W/o.Shri N^iu! Banjare Working SS Cook Post Matric Kanya Chhatrawas, Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESP®^IDENTS /' ^-4. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Schedule Tribe, Schedule Caste, O&C &Minority Welfare & Development Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner Triba) Welfare & Oeveiopment Raipur (C.G.) The Collector (Tribal Welfare Develbpment) District Btiaspur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner (Tribaf Welfare Development) District BUaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CON^TITUTtOttOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WR1T IN THE NATURE O F MANDANIUS, CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR PARTICUt.ARS OF THE PETITIONER As per the cause titte above. WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTfON QR D<RECTIONS. •p r&^ 1 ./^.ff PARTICULAIIS OF THE RESPONDENTS As per the cause title above. ;-^ -• Jr'.'. ^y 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER fSl IMPUGNED AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE^ The petitioner, by way of this writ petition is not challenging any particular order of the respon<|®otsbut is seeking a writ of mandamus commancfing the respondents to extend the benefit of pay sc^te and ^ L.,- 3. 4. HIGH CQURT QF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petitioa No. 1150 of2006 Petitioner Versus Respondents Siat. Nirmala Banjare Stete of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Bablu Slii^le Beach: Hou'ble Mr. Justice Satisli K. Agailtotri. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, couasel for the petitioncr. Shri Sustul Dubey, Govemment Advocate for fhe respondents/ State. ORAL ORDER (25tlL Maroh, 2006) In ttus petition, the petitioner secks a writ ia the nataire of inandamus commaading fhe respondents to iinplement the bcnefit of fhe rcvised 5ib pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 wifh interest. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that fhe petitioner has already made representation ttuough uiuon to respoadent No. 2, Leamed counsel coiifines lus praycr to consideration of tfae petitioner's representation already made through union to respondent No. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents have no objection. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitkiner, if any, wifhin a period of four weeks Irom fhe date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law. Por fhe reasons stated above, the petition statids disposed of. No order as to costs. 1 Satish K. Agnihoai Judge