^l^t^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Petitioners 5 Respondents Writ Petition (S) No. 2040 of 2008 1) Naresh Kumar Chaurasiya aged atoout 33 years, son of Shri Surat Ram Chaurassya, working as RA.E.O., Block Bodia, Dist. tebeerdham (CG). 2) Bapu Singh Bhawei, aged about 35 yeare, son of Shri Kanyaiya Lal Bhawel, presently working as R.A.E'0. Block BodSa, Distt. Kabeerdhm (CG). 3) Brindaban Singh Pawaiya, son of Shri Lajja Ram Pawaiya, aged about 38 yeare. worMng as R.A.E.O. Bodia, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). 4) Ramesh Chancira Bhawel, son of Shri John Singh Bhawel, aged about 28 years, presentiy working as R.A.E.O., Bodla, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). 5) Dharam Chand Sallam aged about 37 years, son of Shri Kashi.Ram SaHam, presently working as R.A.E.O. Biock Bodla Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). 6) Sita Ram Vasure, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Bhiluram Vasure, pressntly working as RA.E.O.BIock Bodta, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). 7) Arvind Kumar Jatav, agect about 34 years, son of Shri Srijai Ram presently working as RA.E.O. Biock Bodla, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretery, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3) The Director (Agricuiture), State of Chhattisgarh, Lophandi Raipur (CG). 4) The Director (^rieuiture) State of M.P. Vindyachai Bhav/an, Bhopa! (MP). 5) Union of india through F.tinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Dspartment of Personnel and Training Khan ^4arket, New De!hi. {Writ Petition Articte under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Pushpa Dymedi, counse! for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupte, Govt. Advocate fortheState. Shri R.S. Baghel, counsel for Union of India. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 7-4- With consent of teamed counsei for the parties, the matter is heard Raju 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that she does not want to press this petition on merit, except that the petitioners be permttted to make a representation to the Committee in the iight of the judgment and order dated 17 Aprit,2007passedbyth!sCourt in B.R. Godbole Vs. Municipat Corporation Durg, and others ( 2007 (2) CGU 417), to which learned counsel appearing for the respondente/State has no objection. 3) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of m the same terms i.e., the Committee so constituted is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners, if their representations are not considered earlier. !n the event, if their representations are not considered earlier, the fresh representations may be considered, as e^editiously as possibie within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representations. The representations may be considered keeping in mind the fact of residenee and posting of the employee in one State and posting of the spouse in <Aher State. This exercise on the part of the Government of India may be comptetad within a pefiod offour months from the date of receipt of a eopy ofthis erder. -—_._c_^._,_ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ;