r, ^i ^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF_CffiIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. SB^ /2004 PETITIONERS:- ..'•'.a^ air,r~».;>^, l^'^^^l '^ ;'S';^-3:^te< .'•> ^.'•, •!?. "V- ?i Y.A' n,- /lyAiv' y ^/'^••\/ :'^MCtt 7^'\Q'/% '^s^y^ • -s^yy ^y Vijay Singfi Chandel S/0- Late Ram Balak Singh Aged about 44 years Assistant Sub-Inspector Dantewada, Distt- Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 2) Ramesh Kumar Pandey S/0- Ram mani Prasad Yadav Aged about 44 years Assistant Sub-Inspector Dantewada, Distt- Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 3) Ram Avtar Patel S/0- Raj Bhan Patel Aged about 43 years Assistant Sub-Inspector Dantewada, Distt- Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1) Union of India Through- The Secretary Ministry of Pe.rsonnel Public Grievances Depot New Delhi 2) State of Chhattisgarh Through- the Secretary Home Depaxtment (Police) D.K.S. Bh&wan, Raipur (C. G.) ]':Y ;,Sfl®tK*i|s)i®a 3) State of Madhya Pradesh Through- The Secretary Home (Police) Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 4) The Director General of Police Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 5) The Director General of Police Madhya Praelesh .Bhopal (M. P. ) WRIT PETITIQNER UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. .;.-- <- XI-HC-78 *ll*lc»la»HT?P \dwi .-oi^irto, t!>Tn<(-i<i<., Rrti-ay ^).^Sg&-4/ 3IT^5TWd> (ijclijd^) W^200 3Tl^STq5rR'li* ?raT3II^CTsOTi<R II ?RITaR^rf^I3I1^ST coUnsel On a mention being made, Mr. Virendra Sharma, AAr. Ra9havendra Pradha^ respondent No.l Mr. 6.K. Beriwal, Depu^y Advocate Seneral for the State of Chhattisgarh/respondents No.2 The petitioners, who are •tiie Poiice Department presen' moved this writ petition under India. Their ca.se is that a1 petitioners gave their option f are permanent residents of ^ r-espondents ought to haye al Mad'nyol Pradesh, but so far no not decided, and they are work In the circumstances, that the petitioners may be respondent No.l through resp< services to the State of appearing for respondents No.: <nitilCT<I1llll»T^"f^iiII•(Rl'«l'< ^3rf^T3II^ST the matter is taken up for hearing. nsei for the petitioners. \i, Standing Counsel for- Union of India/ working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors in •ly posted at bistrict: Ciontewoida, have lArticle 226/-227 of the Constitution of ^ter re-orgiMiization of the Stcte, the F^r the State of AAadhya Pradesh as they |he State of Mndhya Pradesh, and the located their services to the State of order has been passed, their allocation is i|ig in the State of Chhatl-isgarh only. lei^rned counsel for the petitioners submits allowed to make a representation to ^ndents No.2 &. 3 for allocation of their /Aa|Jhya Pradesh, to which learned counsel , 2 & 4 have no objection. -HC-78 3wT -«l4llrt«,t»-rfl<(-f<io,Rrti'dy'; Hl«1rtla?TTTq» .^.^:>..5>^s.^?. 3?T$9T ^WS (ijclijd^) • W^200^- sn^sTERrf^ritp flWSV^VW'S ^. {..-. ;oma one month from today, in turn its comments within another .2 <& 3 cnd the request of tproIrt<?ITi *ii*irtT ^'f^<-(£1'<rji'('c)'< ^3Tf^lT3(I^n set for the parties, haying regard to the case and looking to the limited request rf petitloners, the petitioners are ailowed Hayirrg heard ieamed cou^. fccts ouid circumstances of thel made by iearned counsel for th^ to make a representation to r{ AA' wddaf through respondents N^i.2 i& 3. In the first instance, the petitioners shouid make their r^presentation to respondent No.2 within .A. io.l uifMsin- one-tiieaafc -i.IL J:, am- respondent No.2 after receipt of the same shali for'ward it to respon^ent No.3 with its comments wjthin three months from the date of rece^ipt of the representation, and in turn, respondent No.3 again shall for(ward the same to respondent No.l with t+iree months' thereof, and ultimately, respondent No.l after consideri^g the recommendations of respondents |"he petitioners should pass appropriate order within another three mon-tfris thereof, in accordance with law. With the directions aforel In view of this ord| No.553/2005 also stand dispose|J of. Parties are entitled for c^ said, the petition stands disposed of. er, M.(W.)P.No.4236/2004 and I.A. rtified copy of this order. SA'- L.C.B^do^ Judge