HIGILCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR W.^tS) No. 1734 of 2009 \. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Shail Kadam, aged about 45 years, wife of P.R. Kadam, Occupation - Service, Sahayak Mahila Bal Vikas Vistar Adhikari, Project - Integrated Development Project, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). 2. Smt. Kala Poya, aged about 42 years, wife of Shri R.A.S. Poya, Occupation - Service, Sahayak Mahila Bal Vikas Vistar Adhikari, Project - Integrated Development Project, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G). 3. Smt. Sush.eela Mandavi, aged about 38 years, wife of Rameshwar Mandavi, Occupation - Service, Sahayak, Mahila Bal Vikas Vistar Adhikari, Project —Integrated Development Project - Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG) 4. Smt. Nirupama Raj, aged about 38 years, wife of Shri Rajesh Raj, Occupation Service, Sahayak Mahila Bal Vikas Vistar Adhikari, Project - Integrated Development Project, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG). Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Woman SE Child Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2 The Secretaiy, Department of General Admn. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 3 The Director, Department of Woman 6s Child Development, Near Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G). 4 The Union of India, through Secretary, Minisbty of Woman & Child Welfare, New Delhi. 5 The Union of India, through Secretary, State Reorganization Cell, Khan Market, New Delhi. /^ f,/ W.PfStNo. 1734/2009 6 Collector, Distt. Kanker (CG). WMT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA Appearance : Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh, Dy. Advocate General with Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State/respondents no.l, 2, 3 8s 6 on advance copy. Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for respondents no. 4 & 5 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER t02.04.2009] SVSlLKVM.ARStNHA^J. Heard. The petitioners who are presently working on the post of Sahayak Mahila Bal Vikas Vistar Adhikari ha.ve filed this petition mainly for merger of their services into the post of Supervisor in the Woman and Child Development Department as they are working on their present post since the year 1993-94. Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in a similar petition i.e. W.P(S) No.1491/ 2009 this Court has passed orders in the following terms. "Mr. Arun Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that in the light of decision of fhe Supreme Court in the matter of Pramila Suman Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the decision shall be taken on the letter dated 08.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) within a period of fpur weeks. (2) In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. (2) Accordingly this petition stands disposed oF. W.P('S)No. 1734/2009 --V His submission is that in view of contents of Para 6 of Annexure P-6, this petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 20th ofMarch, ^009 passed in W.P.(S). No.1491/2009. Accordingly, the State counsel is heard on this point. He has no objection to dispose of the same in terrns of the earlier order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 20th ofMarch, 2009 passed in W.P(S).No.l491/ 2009 (Supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge