(b IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. 13 /2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^- ^ Praraod Singh Thakur S/o. Shri Jagat Singh Thakur Aged about 26 years, Occupation-Assistant Grade-III Permanent R/(fc Shri Ram Chowk Gulabrao, Chindawada (M.P.) ; At Present Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur 1 Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) | VE^SUS ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Public Works Departruent D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Superintending Engineer Public Works Depart/taent (B&R) Shahdol Circle, Shahdol (M.P.) 3< The Superintending Engineer Public Works D-epartment (NSsH) Shahdol Circle, Shahdol (M.P.) The Executive Engineer P.\^.D. (B SsRjDivision No.l Clhndawada (M.P.) 5^ The State of M.P. Through The Secretary Public Works Department Vallabh Bhawan Mantralaya Bhopal(M.P.) 6. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department (B&R) Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. The Union of India Through Director Departtnent of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions Govt. of India, III-Floor, Lok Nayak Bha'wan Khan Market, New Delhi 110003 SnBia-'nia.uaB. .ffBi'.eTSsiusasyat^^gSaEi s°<«us«a3sa-—F: // 2 // TOTRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ~SSf "!(|<!)|c|<|, t9Tn<1'IS, fcfdlti^< STI^T 3I1^T?iT f^iwsn^T Shlifflf?cT 311^1 ^kllWHl^H 27-4-: On a wention beinq made, Miss Sofia an, counsel Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panei respondents No.l and 6. > Mr. Raghavendra Pradhtin. respondent No.7 1-ieard. The petitioner has filed tj order aliocating his serv'ices reorganization of 1+ie erstwhiie aaainst the ootion qiven by him fl The petitioner is workin^ Works Department. The petitii) the State, the petitioner, being^ Madhya Pradesh, gave option fo of Madhya Pradesh, but against State of Chhattiseiarh. Furtiier paid empioyee and he is res respondent No.7 Union of Indio^ ouoht to have allocated his servM |he mati'er is taken up for hecring. •f^r the petitioger. ^awyer for the State of Chhattisgarh/ Standing Counsel for Union of India/ chi<il<i<fl-i tfitiCTTfttetit<Ri«i< ^'srf^irsn^r 'jiis writ petition be'mg aggrie.ved by the ^•o the State of Chhattisgar-h after [State of Madhya Pradesh on 1-11-2000 tr the State of Madhva Pradesh. as Assistant ©rade-IIIin the Public iner's ca.se· is that on reorganization of a permanent resident of the 5tate of ailocation of his services to the State his option he has been altocated to the ^ase of the petitioner is that he is a low dent of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, after consulting respondents No.l & 5 ^es to the State of Madhya Pradesh. XI-HC-22 'SSf "i|l<||ctq, ®Tfl«'16,fs|^lti^< 3TT^?I HWMI ShHIW Rrlif^ ^ . W.~. A..-. .1. . /TTTT^. ^ ^y ^- sn^rw R-ii+sn^r sbtllch T^^Hf^T :a- Sl, ^l-'-^.-.^.-il: 3ii^i swiiWHfer -2j~ Learned counsel for the pe owabbut SDate [002, thereafter he made ^presentations have riot been ce ubmits that on the option givfin b^ hhatt!S9arh gave no objectiori'-ab itates of Madhya Pradesh, and tiif onsent for retaining him in the o that, the petitioner's services 'hhattisgarh by Union of India. Therefore, in the circumt letitioner further submits that th< epresentation to Union of India Aadhya Prcdesh, and responden- epresentation within a period of ppearing for the State of Chhatti^ 'f India/respondent No.7, haye no j; Having heard learned counse :acts and circumstances of the 'equest made by learned counsel f( •o allow the petitioner to make 4 •hroug'n respondent No.l within 15 •itioner submits that the pe' jafh only cfter allocation in the year se^/er-al repgesentations, but those ^nsidered. Learned counsel further ^ the petitioner herein, the State of his ailocation of services to the State of Madhya Pradesh aiso gave of Madhya Pradesh, but contrary have been allocated to the State of tiwTii'fl-f iiHcii ffte':&<.Rt+<ii< ^'ari^iTsn^r t^toaices, learned counse! for the petitioner may be allowed to make a t|irough the States of Chhattisgar'h & No.7 be directed to decide his fwo months, to which learned counsel sgarh/respondents No.l i& 6 and Union ibjection. for the parties, having regard to the ;, and having regard to tiie limited the petitioner, it is just and proper representation to respondent No.7 ^jays from today, on receiving the said atse itr nw)iR)ffl,, XI-HC-22 iiwn sn*ii<») 3^? -^WW^, Vr^WW, l°tdtUy 311^1 q^qi f sn^rw f^-TraTsn^T ai1Riffl?(T x boma 3<I^IS«llWfffl?T 3, representation, respondent No.l No.5 within two months thereo^ respondent No.5 shall atso consii in an objective manner and fo comments and opinion within respondent No.7 shall pass apg after considering the onother three months thereof. With 1+ie obseryations stands'disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.t 963/2005 aiso stcmd disposed o1| Parties are entitled for celi recom menyations ^srafepftT iWRfr'ff te^t d^Rrc ^Srf^lTSn^T shatl forward the same to respondent giving comments and opinion, in turn, ler i+ie reor'esentation of the Detitioner ^ ('ward it to respondent No.7 with its an{>ther two months thereof, thereafter, ^opriate order, in accordance with iaw, made by both the States within iprdered accordingiy. ^nd directions aforesaid, the petition '.No.393/2005, I.A.Nos.962/2005 and ••tified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge (cfl^^M) -~r?-: !.