HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS?UR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2395 0f2008 PETITIONERS . R.K.Ma1viya, aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Hari Kishore Mahliya, presently working as — Rurai Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Bamhnidih7 Digit. Janjgii=Champa (CG) 2. Ram Shankar Katiyar, aged about 50 yams, werking as Rural Hozticulmre Extension OiEcer, Govt. Saxljay Nikuaj Anjon'paii, Kharsiya, Dist‘t. Raigarh ((16,) 3, Prabhu Dayai Dame, aged about 3’? years; son 0f Shri Bhawse Dohre presently working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bhek Kawardha, Distt. Kabeerdham (C.G.) 4. Pz‘akash Chandra Vijay son of Shri Madhav Singh Vijay§ aged about 40 years, presently working as KXEO. Biock Kawardha, Distt. Kabeerdham. 5. AKSahu, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Babu Lal Sahu, working as Rural Agriculture Exteasioo Gillcer, Palari, Block Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Santosh Singh Rajput, Sou of Shri Venkat Raman Singh, aged about 46 years, presently working as R.A.E.O. Block Dondi Lohal'a Distt. Durg (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS . State of Chhattisgarh, ibrough the Chief Secretary, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipw' (C.G.) 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, Govemmerat of Madhya Pradeslr Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 3. The Director (Agriculture), State of Chhattisgarh, Lophandi Ralpur (CG) 4. The Director (Agriculture) State of MP, Vindhyachal Bhawan ~ Bhopal (M?) 5. Union of India through v Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Department of Personnel and Training, Khan Market, New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226‘0F THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA SB: Hon’ble Shrl Satish K. Aonihotri J. Present: Shri V.Vijay, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Amrito Des, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. l and 3. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the Union of India/respondent No. 5. / With the consent of the parties, the matter is iaken up for hearing the matter finally. QRAL ORDER (Passed on 015' day of May, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press this petition on merit except that the petitioners be permitted to make a representation to the Committee ir1 1ight of the judgnent and order dated 17th April, 2007 passed by this Court in B.R.Godboie Vs. Municipal Corporation Drirg and others {2007(2) CGLJ 417}, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State have no objection. 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 if it is not eonsidered earlier, the fresh earlier. In the event, representation may he considered, as early as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. This exercise on the part of the Government of India may be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge f Sd/—