?r"»a! Jawaharlal Sisodiya, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Amar Singh, Sisodiya, Sub Inspector Police, Police Station Civit Liae, Bilaspur(CG) 1 Union of India, Through The Secretary, Personnel and Trainiug Departineut, III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawaa, Khan Market, New Delhi. 2 State of Chhattisgarh, Thi-ougli the Secretary, Department of General Administration (State Reoi^anization CeU), Maatralaya Dau Kalyaa Singh Bhawaa, Raipur(CG) 3 State of Madhya Pradesh, Througli; The Secretary, Department of Hoiae (Police) VaUabh Bhawan, Bhopal(MP) 4 Shri Khuxnaa Siagh Dhruw, Sub Inspector Police, Police Station District Kanker(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W!VS' SK- Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. • Advocate with Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate appears on behaif of Shri S.K. teriwal, Counsel for respondeiit No. 1/Union oflndia. Shri Sumit Veriaa, Paael Lawyer for fhe State/respondent No.2. None for ofher respondent. (10.12.2007) Heard. Leamed seaior counsel appearing for the' petitioner argues that this matter relates to fiaal aUocation of the petitioner after reorgaaization of tlie State of Madhya Pradesh ia the year 2000. According to luia the allocation shoiild have u ,^S.Ain!IU 2. WP No6591/2005 been coinpleted at the earliest just after reorganization. of fhe erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reoigaaization Act, 2000. He submits that tBl today, the case pertauung to allocation of fhe petitioner has not been finalized. He very speci&cally subuiits that iu fhe first aUocation, the petitioner was aUocated to fhe State of Chhattisgarh aad respondentNo.4was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh axid both applied for luutual allocati.on/transfer vide Aimexure P-ll-A, but the matter has not been finalized so far aad respondentNo. 4 has been called back to the State of Chhattisgarh and the case ofthe petiti.oner is stiU pendiag. However, all fhe counsel representiug their parties aad appearing beforc fhis Court agree that this petition inay be disposed ofiu tenns of fhe order dated 17th April, 2007 passed by this Court ia W.P.No.445/2001 aad aaother coniiected W.P.No.446/1001. Since a joiat prayer is inade on behalf of bofh the sides, this petition is disposed ofin tennsofthe order already passed by this Court in W.P.No.445/2001 aiid the parties are directed to take necessary steps iii accordauce with para 14 of the aforesaid order. The petitioner inay also file fhe copies ofwrit petition as also any other docuiuent» which fhe petitioncr desires necessaiy for disposal ofbis case. The petition is finally disposed of. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge <^I^»M'fc