^-f") -zra •i^l^I S. Q^M;? BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.A?.^6....../06 Petitioner , <b£/s)^ /l%^" .--y^ ^y ^•- Respondents: ^ «-'n^uc^ •f^o'"y^ Bhushan Khess, S/o Late Luther Khess, Aged aboaut 55 years, R/o Bhagalpur, Jeshpur Dist. C.G. State. versus 'l). State of Chhatisgarh Through: Secretary, Watei- Resoiirces Departinent DKS Bhawan, Raipur Dist. CG State. 2) Chief Engineer, -^Water Resources Department, Bilaspur. CG State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INJDIA ISSUANCE OF APROPRIATE WRmS) / GRDER (S) / DIREDCTION (S), ETC. HI6H COUKT OF CHHATTtSSARH AT BILASPW W. P. fS) No. 7536 of 2006 Petitioner : Bhushan ess Versus Respondents : State of Oihattisgarh and ano-rtier W. P. (S) No. 7537 of 2006 PeTJTioner ; SonTosh famar Sinha Versus Respondents ; State of Chhattisgorh and another W. P. tS\ No. 7539 of PetiTfoner" : Lal Sai Ram Versus Respondents ; State of Chhati'isgar+i and another Hmi'ble Mr, Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Ahr. K.ft. Nair, Advocate for tiie pefitioners. Mr. Sudiil &ubey, Sovemmsnt Advocate for the re l+s!/(?+( OR&ER yassed on this 8th day of January, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one T.G. Ramachondra Kurup similarly situuted empioyee had filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 670 of 2004, wherein this Court after considering tiie facts of the granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to fne coropetent authority of the respondents. The competent authority' of 1+ie respondents, in 1urn, was directed to decide the case of -rtie petitioner on its own merit, in accordance with !aw, as eariy as possible, preferobly, witiiin three months from the date of receipt of the representation. It is •furtiier submitted that severa! other persons have also epproached tiiis Court in !ike manner CTid on their representations, the competent authorit^- of the re^sondents has gnmted rollef. Furtiier, the competent duthority' of •tiie respondents has declined to grwit cny relief to those persons, who had not (^proached to this Court. 2. In -the iight of the above aibmission, the petitioners are granted iiberty to roake detailed r-epresentations to the corapetent fluthority' of ttie respondents. On ajch representations, being filed by •fte petitioners, the competent authority of the respondents shail consider and decide 1fte some on its own merit, in accordance with !aw, os early as possible, preferabiy, within a period of two months from Ihe. date of receipt of the representations. 3. Tnese writ petitions nre accordingiy disposed of. No order as to costs. 4. A copy of this order be placed on record in other connected writ petstions. Sd/- Satish K. A( Judge