^ ww^ "ai IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. fo f-3/2005 Anirudh Singh thakur, aged about 43 years, Son of Late Jugraj Singh Thakur, Posted at Primary Health Centre, Bijapur, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattsgarh. Surendra Kumar Mandawi, son of Late Shri Faguram Mandavi, aged about 34 years, Dresser Grade I, Pnmavy Health Centre, Katekalyan, South Bastar, Dantewada. Chhattisgarh. •Harishankar Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of l^ate Baburam Yadav, Dresser, Grade I, Primary 1-tealth Centre, Katekalyan, Dantewada, C.G. Rameshwar Netam, aged about 34 years, son of Late Mangal Ram Netam, Dresser Grade I, Katekalyan, Dantewada, C.G. Smt Bebi Kumari, aged about35 yeas, widow of Late Pramod Kumar, Peon, Community Health Centre, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ^ ^ A PWV >s>~ c,^^ RESPONDENTS ^">.. ^e '4>^ x\. .-'"2. /-^. . 4. State of Chhattisgarh.Through the Secretary, hlealth of Family Welfare, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director, Health Services, Directorate Health Services, Behind Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Dantewada, (C.G.). Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dantewada, Danteshwari Mandir Road (C.G.) Secretary General Administration Department, , D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, State ofC.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR 1 ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI, AND/ OR ANY 1 OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2005 Petitioners Arurudh Siagh Tbakiir & ofbers Versus Respondent State of Chliattisgarh & othera WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble ShriSatishK. AgiuhotriJ.) Shri Cbaadresh Sbrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Stui M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ^ ORDERtOrall (Passed on fhis 17tfa day of September, 2009) Heard. 1, 2. 3. Tfaalair Learaed counsel appearing for the petitiouers submits fhat after filmg of fhis petition the petitioners have been discrimuiated ia ofher respects viz a viz jujuors to the petitioaers. However, fhe petitioners do not want to contest this inatter and pray for wifhdrawal of the writ petition with Uberty to raise fhe issue before the authorities conceraed. Leamed counsel appeariag for the respondents/State subinits fhat if a representation is made, fhe same shall be considered and decided by Uie authority concemed, in accordance wifh law, withia a period of eight weeks froni fhe date of receipt of fhe represeritation. Accordiagly tius petition staads disposed ofwifh the above stated Uberty. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnibotri Judge ^