IN THE. HIGH COURT OF JUDICAm M BILASPUR(C.G.) AMENDED PETITION WRIT PETITION No.3839/2003 PETITIONERS l. ' DASHRATHLAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,SON OF SHRI RAMBHAO YADAV, SAINIK NO . 36282 , RESIDENT OF NEAR WI SAHU KIRANA STORES, SHITLAPARA, RAMNAGAR, BILASPUR (C .G.) APBIWK PRASAD SHARm, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARé, SON OF SHRI PADUM PRASAD SHARMA, SAINIK NO . 2 6 , RESIDENT OF ASHWANI NAGAR , ASHOK AATA CHAKKI , PMDAR >BHATHA, MUNGELI , RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) . SHIVNARAYAN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS , SON OF BUDHRAM SINGH PATEL, LA. NO. 402, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGBAHRA KALA, BAGBAHRA , mHASAMUND (CHHATTISGARH) 4. GANESH RAM VERMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF GAIDA RAM VERMA, SAINIK NO. 422 , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHELI , POST TARRA, P . S . PAATAN, ’71/é£l0g Fileu' an °k g F v v by shri..E.m.5.?fZr’« DISTT. DURG (C.G.) Mimuate “nun. n..«.v....-...n.n.-n...nuuu. “ ” A51, ’ 5. TULS‘IRAM VERMA, AGED ABOUT 4o mwmwlckkg YEARS”, sON OF SHRI KANHAIYA LAL VERM, SAINIK NO. 51420, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAWA, POST TARRA, P.S. DHARSIWA, DISTT. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) . / 44/ / r a MAKWAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF SHRI BUDHE RAM, SAINIK NO. 516, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRRI, POST SIRRI, P.S.KURUD, DISTT. DHAMTARL (C.G.) MANSINGH LAHRE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,SON OF SHRI NEEL KANTH, .SAINIK NO. 212, RESIDENT OE‘ VILLAGE ANWARI, POST ANWARI, P.S. KURUD, DIST'I'. DHAMTARI (CHHATTISGARH) DASHRATH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, $0M OF SHRI MAKHANLAL, SAINIK NO. 747, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHINWARI, POST SIRRI, P.$. KURUD, DISTT. DHAMTARI (CHEATTISGARHY. ISHWAR SONI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF SHRI CHANDRIKA SONI, SAINIK N0. 293, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE OGAN, POST OGAN, P . S . PALLAN, BALODABAZAR , DIS TT . RAI PUR (CHHA‘I'TISGARH) . BHOLA PRASAD CHANDRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JIVRAKHAN LAL CHANDRAEGXR, SAINIK‘NO. 5'75, HOUSENO. 171 ANTANG, VILLAGE POST ACHOTI, P.S. DHAMTARI KURUD, (CHHATTI$GARH) . SHEmIAR RAM VERMA, AGED ABOUT ‘45 YEARS, SON OF LATE KISHUN VERMA, SAINIK NO. 796, NEW VIJAY NAGAR, AVANTI VIHAR, SHANIGXR NAGAR, TELIBANDHA, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARE) . @ 12. JOGI RAM VERM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH VERm, SAINIK NO . 608 , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ONGAN, POST ONGAN, P . S . PALLARI , DISTT. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH). 13. SUKHDEV PRASAD, SON OF MAKHAN LAL DHEEMAR, SAINIK NO. 108, RESIDENT OF GANJ PARA, BANDHA TALABPARA DURG, (C.G.) (LADDOOWALE ) , POST P.S. DURG, DIST‘I‘. DURG l4. 15. JOHAR SINGH DHRUVANSHING , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH , SAINIK NO . 8389, RESIDENT OF GANJBARA, BUDHA TALAB, DISTT. DURG (C.G.) PHAGWA RAM KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF‘ SHRI BHUDU RAM, RES IDENT OF VILLAGE MHMARA, DISTT. DURG (C.G.) l. VERSUS THE STATE O CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY , DEPARTDENT OF HOI‘E GUARDS, D.K.S. BHAWAN, MANTRALAY, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) . THE ‘LINSPECTOR‘ GENERAL, HOME GUARDS, DISTT. RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) . 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) . F @ 4. TEE DISTRICT COMMANDANT, HOW DISTRICT - RAIPUR GUARDS , (CHHATTISGARH) . WRIT P§TITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE ./fJE T: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3839 of 2003 Petitioners Dashrathlal Yadav 8r, others VersuS Respondent The State of Chhattisgarh &. others $ing1e Bench: Hon’bAe Mr: Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Smt Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the Petiiioners. 8111i Sandeel') Dubey, Goverrmlent Advocate for the respondentsf State. ORAL ORDER (14th February, 2006) Learned counsel for the petitionere submits that the petitioners were working as Home Guards ill District Raipur. The services of the petitioners were terminated way back in the year 1983 on the ground” that they formed a rally and participated therein. The rally was organi7ed by the Home Guards themselves, raising their demands for grant of allowances and their regulalization on the post of police constable. Being aggrieved, d1e petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur being WP. No. 2627/ 1983, Subsequently, the petitioners withdrew that petition with leave to file a fresh petition, The petition was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 20, l. 1984:. ’ The peh'tioners have filed this petition on 19. 11.2003 after a period of about 19 years. This petition cannot be entertained after such a long x period; when the rights of all the parties have settled. However, in the facts of the case, lealned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty of this Court to make a representation before the competent authorities for redressal of grievances of the petitioners. [Q k” Tlm pstitionErs are granted liberty to file representation for redressal of their gn'gvances before the competent authoxities. In the event, representation is made before the competent autllolities, the competent authon'ties are directed to consider the same sympathetically, keeping in View, the fact that the petitioners have snifered for about 23 years, on account of their removal from services. The competeot authorities are directed to consider and decide the represeritation of the petitioners within a period of six Weeks from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioners, if any. In View of the foregoing, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs, r 1 Sadsh K. Agm'h0m Judge L; j. Sd/- O‘l.