w AWé/ézs" Lav C9 1244/65 App licants : LVersus/ Re sgondents : IN THE M. P.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT JABALPUR GRIGINAL APPLICATION No .34 ~ 7 i‘ /1 995,. 1‘ C.P. Namdeo s/o shri H.P.Pé'tWa, aged about ‘36 years. working as Lewer Division Clerk in the office of Public Works Department (BER), Raigarh DiVision,Raigarh (MP) N.P. Pankaj s/o P5rasram- Pan'kaj’ aged about' 31 ye§rs, working as Lower Divisicm Clerk in p.w.D. (3m), Raigarh,Div\ision. Raigarh (MP). ‘shri Daychan‘d Yadav s/o shri Dayaram Yadav aged about 32 years, Lewer Division Cle‘rk in P.W.D. (B&R), Raigarh mkzisjpngqaigarh (MP) . Smt Mita li Choudhary w/o Shiv cneudharv,aged about 33 years, ‘ Lower Div1sion Clerk: in the o fice of .P.w.D. (B&R), Raigarh DiVisionDRaigarh. amlal Yadav s/o santram Yadav’, aged about 36 years, Lower DiVision Clerk in P W D. (35:12), Raigarh Div1sion, Raigarh (mph 6g Hiralal Yadav $/G Shri Yadav, aged about 36 yearS, Lower Division clerk in the o/o P.w.D. (B&R),Raigarh Div15ion,Raigarh (MP). B.D.vaisanav s/o shri Ganesh Das Vaishnal aged about 28 yearS, Lower Divmion Clerk in the Gffoae of; P.W°D.(B&R) Raigarh DivisiongR'aigarh (MP).. 1 1 . emeixxngxneemmasti State Of M P. through Secretary, Public works Depa rtment , Va llabh Bnawap , Bhopa l (MP ) 9¢2§ I R , , AD _ *2- 2. The Chief Engineer (East Rublic works Department, Raipur,Distt.Raipgr (MP). 3. The Superintending Engineer Public~ Works De’pa rtment . Raiga rh Divis iQn, RaigarhxMP ) ‘. THE‘ ORIGINéL APPLICATIGN UNDER SECTION 19 Of MINISTRATIVE‘ TRIEUNALS ACT, 1985. b ; Pm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1246 of2005. ‘ i1 Petitioner C. P. Namdeo Versus Respondents State of M. P. (now Chhatu'sgarh) & others (SB: Hon’ble Shri Sau'sh K. Agnihotn' J.) None for the petitioner. Shxi N. N. Roy and Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyers for the respondents] State. o R n E R 1on1) ( Passed on this 13th day of November, 2009 ) The matter is called for hearing twice. On both the occasions none appears nor any repmsentation is made on behalf of the peu‘tioner. The petiiioner may not be interested in prosecuting the matter. In View of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. A copy of this order shall be sent to the peu'tioner forthwith. s_‘. .. , so. 5w. Satish K. Agniiaotri Jlhdge