\ c^ ~^ ^. -\f BEFORE THE HQN'BLE HI6H COURT OF CMMATTISSARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. -5 O /2011 PETtTtONERS .^ .•^r?"'^/ y ^ RESPONDENTS 1.' 2. / Sanfosh Kumar Ghort'urvedi, S/o. Shri Lakhah Lal Chaturvedi, Aged about 47year's, R/o. B/397, Adarsh Nagar, P.0. Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.6.) Jqygnt Rdy, S/o. Shri S.N^ROY, Ageddbout 41 yedrs, Presently wqrking as POr^man Incharge at Amlai, Open Cast Mines, Sohagpur Area, S.E.C.L. R/o. Qtr. No. B-003, Regional Colony, Post Dhanpuri, Distt. ShQhclbl^M.P.) VERSUS 1.' Union oflndia, Through the SecRetary, AAjnistryof Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Codl India Lirnited, Through the Chairinan, '-" Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road,Kolkata700 001 3.< South Eastern Coal Fields Limited ThroughtheCMD^Ghairman-cum- Mdnaging Director) S.E.C.L. Seepat Road,Bilaspur,&istr'ictBilaspUr(C.6.) •4. The Director (Peftsonne!) t ; South Eastern Coal Reld Ltd. ' SeepatRoad,^B;ilaspyr'^C.©.)? 5.' The&irector (Personriel <&Inyustridl Reldtidns) Coa| India Limited,'10, NetajiSubhaSh'Road,Ko|l^^ WRrr PB dt ITION UN6ERl^iynCUE^ 22& Op THE C0NSTiroT-E©NOF^rs(E):EA aiittlr ? 4UU!s mCH COUKT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 202 of2011 , PETmQNER : Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : UnionofIndia&Others. ~ WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION QI-' INDIA : ; -: SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Aenihutri, J. Present: ShriArvmdE>ubey,Advocatefi)rthepetitioaer. , ORDERrQRAL) (Passed on 14u'dayof Januaty,201I) 1. The petitioners have earlier filed awrit petitioa being W.E.(S)No. 3657/2010, fwthe same reliefas sou^ri: forinthis petituaii.^wiaeh ; was disposed ofon 22.07.2010 g'antmglibertytofliepetitioners to make a detailed representation to the respondent-authorities. ; 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners suhmits that pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2010, a representation was made but np decision has been taken till date by fhe respondent authorities. 3. Though, a second petition for the same reliefis aot mamtamable, however, since no sehedule time was given inthe earlier petition to decide the representation of the petitioners, without enteriag inte the merits of fhe case, the respondents are directedthat iftiie representation of tKe petitioners, as stated above, are penidKng consideration, the same shaU be considered and deeided sin ' accordance with law on its own merits and perspeetive, withm a ; period offour weeks from fhe date ofreceipt ofacopypffhis order. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposedof • ; ] Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit .,-:,1.1