^^ HI<5H COURT OF CHHATT[S6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S} No. 3177 of 20^ Petition&rs 1. z. 3. 4. 5. 7. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Mor^ Ssngh Waskel, ag&d about 35 years, son of Siri MangaTi.ji Waskel, presently working os Sr. R.A.E.O., glock Manpur, &»sn.Rajnondgaon (C^) Lal Singh Jomre. a^ed about 32 years. son of Shri 6ufad» Singh Jamre, workin9 as ft.A.E.O., Block - 8abda Bazar, Raipur (C6) Ratan Lal Thakt'e, aged about 52 years, son of Shri Chhaysn Lal Thakre, working as R.A.E.O. Block AAoryur. Dten. Rajnondgaon (C^) Bhogwan bas 6uha, obout 52 yeors^ son of Shri Mangi Lal ©uha,workfrig as R.A.E.O. Btock Balod Bazar, Raipur (CS) SanTo^i Singh Ahirwar, aged about 37 years, son of airi Koni Rom, pnssently working as R-A-E.O. m the Office of Sr. Agricuhure Oevelopment Officer, Block Kawardha Distt. {(abjrdham (€6) Anmol M&^ram ogect about 33 years, son of 5hri CliunnilaJ Mes^hrom. prefiently working as ft.A.E-0. in -Hw Office of 5r. Agricul'hire Development Officer, Block Lohara, bis^. (^ibirdham (C6) bkuuis Singh Ohurwny, c^ed obajt 35 years, son of 5hri Khata Slngh, pr&sently wor4<in9 as R.A.E.O- in the Office of Sr. Agriculture Etevelopment Officer, Block Loharo, bistt. Kabirdham (C6) State ^f Chhatti^orh. Throu9h -riie Chief Secretory, Dau KaJyan Singh Bhawan, (toipur (C.©.) State of Madhya Prad&sh through the Chtef Secretary. Balladbh Bhawon, Bhopfi{(M.P.) The birector (Agricutture) State of Chhanisgarh, Lophondi, Raipur (C6) ?> < 3. 1. 4- Th& bir&ctor (Agrtajlturft) S+ote of Atadhya Pradesh, Vindhyadial Bhavwn. Bhopal (MP) 5. Unbn of India, +hrough the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel. Public ^rievonass, Khon Atortet, New Delhi. WRTT PETTTOIN UNbER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF IN&IA Slngte Beneh: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J. ^iri V. Vi^iy, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Ajay bwiv&di; beputy 6oyt< Adyocate for -ttie R&spondants No- 1 and ^irs Ko^if Shateel, Advocate for the Union pf India/Re^ond<Bnt No< 5. ORALORDER (Passed on thjs 25th d<xy of June, 2006) With the. conserst of the part-ies c^p&arir»9 sri the matt&r, the petiticm s5 finally h&ard. 2. Leam&d counseil opp&aring for the p&tition&rs subniit^ 1h<3t h& does not want to pr&ss this petition on m<&nt &xcapt thot the petitioners b& p&rmitted to make a repres&ntotion to +he Commitfree in +h& {ight of the jucigment and order ciatec! 17th April. 2007 passed by this Court in B, R fiodbote Vs, Mimidpd Cotyoratlon, burg and atheaps (2007 (2) C6LJ 417), to which learnad counsel appearing for tha respondsnt/State ho$ no obj&ction- 3- Accordingly, the petitbn is disposed of »iths sam& terms i-&- <rii<s Commitl'ee so con^+itut&d i5 directed to consicfer the representatbn made by the p&titioner^ if their repr&fienta+ions ore not ccmsid&r&d earli&r. In the eveyit, if the r&pre^&ntations ar& not conssd&r&d ,/^a^f!\ 4/ ^. vs '^ '^® .i ^. % ^ ^^ ,, r^^,^^-' 3 %£ Thakir ^srSier, the fr&^s repr^sentations nioy be consid&red, 6S eorly as pos^ble withirs a pariod of four months frorp the date of refieipt of ths repr&sentotions/This exercSse on the part- of th& 6overrw<CTt of India may b& eompleted within a period of four months froni the date of receipt of a cc^py of thi^ order. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge