c^ INTHEHON'BLEHIQH£;OUI®EQFCHHATHSGARHAT BIIASPUR (eHHMnSGARm wRrr pEnnoNfsy NQ. /2010. PETmONERS: ^ f^ ^" ^^y^ ^<3.^«y< x ^%^u .sPSS^ r^y :^/^y ^ tf>' ^ 1. BakleqRam, son ofLateMahirain, aged aBoutSO years,;working as Chbwkidar Goyt. Aashram Shala, Gutakgra., Tahsil Manpra, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kaleshwar Singh, son of ©uhnu, -/'1: ...::~ : 1: ' : - ;: ' ^ .' ' . • i : : aged about 32 years, working as Cocdt, Qovt Aasht^in Shala, Gutakiya, Tahsil Mariora, District Ja.shpur, Ghhattfsgaili. ^. TaraGhaiidSiEigli^soriofRamdham Sir^h, ^edabout 28 years.wiM'king asCfaowkidar, Govt. Aaslu-ain Shala, lCaradari, Tahsil Maaoffi, Distnct Jashpur, CIthatlisgarh. ^/4. Bimla yadaw, spn ofAKttl Ram Yadav, aged about 27 years, workuig as Gook, Qdwt.AashraiFtShala, Xaradari,?Tahsil Manora, Distnst Jashpi.tr,<;lahattisgarh. 5. Smt.SiyutaBai.wife ofSukhnath Su^h, s®6dabout 29 years.working as Waterniaa, Govt. AashramShala, Kandora, TahsitManora,'District Jashpur, ClihattSgarli. versus Respondents c^ 1; Stateofpdiatti^a.rti.'throu^i Secretaryi 'I'ribalW€lfa iDep£y?tmen^ ^^.SShe^^ 2. CQHMHissiQtiei^ ?I*Fi^aI<WSiare • -^' -\. HS '3. AssistantCommissioner.Tribal WeUare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^4. eollector; Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^5.BlockEducationDfiicer,Block Maaora.DistrictJashpi.ir, Chhattisgarh. WRTT PEHTnON UNDEItARTICLE 226 OFTHE CQNSTITU'IIQNOFINDIA. E-a S li: 3II^T^lft:lh7 '^TT Sn^Tsd^i^ *lf*l<1T^W^i 's^T '^i^iyi-ij, 0-al-M<i<o, iq<?iiy^< — .l/J..'.L^2.^.;i£.l6^..0.. sn^i^ra^ (yil3q<i*i) 'TCUWBftg 3iI^!I FSB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra M|ohan Shrivasta'ca. J.1 29.6.2011 with Shri C.J. K. Rao along Harish Khuntiya, counsel for Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Learned counsel for the issue relating to claim of other employees catne up for q in W.P. (S) No.2004/11 and examkiing the claim of the directed consideration of the Ci that the case of the petitionerj order. On the other hand, submits that the representatif decided after due verification. After going through the in W.P. (S) No.2004/11, it is petitioners are squarely Therefore, fhe petitioners ari direction in the case. Accordingly, it is directe] fresh representation before the^ ^ra^^T^f^ ^fIS^ •[f^l-^K ^flfiraan^g Shri Akshay Yadav and Shri tljie respective petitioners. |Lawyer for the State. petitioners submits that the conljractual payment to Cook and jonsideration before this Court batch of petitions and after petitioners, fhis Court had tse in those cases. He submits are covered by the aforesaid lefcrned counsel for fhe State (n of the petitioners would be ^rder dated 15.4.2011 passed ^.pparent that fhe case of the by the aforesaid order. also entitled to the sarae covdred fhat if the petitioners make concemed authority, claiining XI-HC—78 SV^ W i^-t)'* ^T«fT-STT^ 3)fliq'> Tumane ^~5T '<iWW'i{, ©fllwiS,fs<MWy •"^200 3n^iTR^ (lic<i:l°<<S?) payment ot nununum wagq eruployee under the Chhatti) Appointment) Rules, 2004, th^ accordance with lavy, within a date of submission of repres^ntati adverse order, the petitioners petition afresh. ^n^i^TTV^t'^ fe^ ^pai^K ^aifro^n^i s appliGaUle to a contract sgarh Civil Service (Contract ' same shaU be disposed of iri period of eight weeks frora the intation. In the event of any would be at liberty to file writ With the aforesaid dir^ction, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd-/ Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava ;r'=^-^, Judge. ;1.' • K