gtz l ‘95 - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1324 of 008 . . i : 1. Shiv Kumar Pathak, aged agaout 52 years, son of ’ , Shri Madam i’athak present'? workm gag Asswtant Platcon Commandar 9 Batalhan, C G Spemal Force — Dantewada, Dlstt Dantewada (C G ) Home D1str1ct Bhopal {MP} PETHIONERS 2. Narayan La} Kuslrvvaha, age<i about 34 years sen oi Shn Tevan La} Kushwaha. presently workmg as. — nonstable 9m Battahan, CG Spemal Force —— Dantewada DIStt Dantewada (C G) (Home Dxsmct Murama MP) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur‘(C.G‘), 2‘ State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretmy, Government ofMadhya Pradesh, Bhopal. . The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter — Rdrpur (C G ) The Director General or Police Polrce Head Quarter, Bhopal (M P ) 5. Union of India, through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Perlsion, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, Khan ‘ Market, New Delhi. , ETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA WRIT P C SB: Hon’ ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate fer the petitioners. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent No.‘1 and 3. Shn' Ajay Batik, Advocate on behalfof Shri S.K.Ben'wal, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17a; day of March, 2008) LA No. 01. This is an application for amendment in the cause title. The application is ordered as prayed for. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes to make necessary corrections during the course ofthe da. y 7‘1 . :H 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not want to preés this petition on merit except that the éetitioners be permitted to make a representation to the Committee in lightiof the judgment and order o dated 17m April, 2007 passed by this Court in B;.R.Godbole Vs. Municipai Corporatioa Durg and others {2007(2) CGLI 417}, to which 1eamed counsel appearing for the respondent’State have no objection. 2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in 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. In the event, if it is not considered earlier, the dash representation may be considered, as early as possible within a yeriod of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The representations may be considered keeping in mind the fact of residence and posting of the empioyee in one State and posting of the spouse in other State. This exercise on the part of the Govermnent of India may be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. t. . Sci/— Satish K. Agnihntri‘ v v Judge . 1 1 i, . « 4),... Amit it l, l