BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <1 W.P.No. (2-33 Qf 2006. PETITIONERS ^' /' RESPONDENTS :- !.D.K.Dubey,sonofShriR.G.Dubey, ^ Aged about 56 "years, resident of Old Sarkanda (Shivghat), Bilaspur (Chliattisgarh), 2. S.K. Gupta, son ofLate M.L. Gupta, aged about 44 years, resident of Shiv Mandir Road, Mangla Naka Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur (Chliattisgarh), 3. S.K. Pandey, sou ofShri B.P. Pandey, aged about 53 years, resident ofR.T.S; Colony, Qr. No. 535, Bilaspur (C.G.), 4. M.S. Rajput, son ofG.S. Rajput, aged about 54 years, resident of Village at P.0. Jaaji, Tafasil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VER S U S :-1. Collector, Collectorate, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), '2. Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (Chliattisgarh), 3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No. 1, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ^•IJ)l. PETITIONUNDERARTICLES 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^"_ —^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1233 of 2006 Pctitioner D. K. Dubey and others Versus Respondcnts CoUector and othera 1;'; Siagle Bench ; HonTste Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate wifh Miss Sangeta Mishra, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemm.cnt Advocate for fhe Respondents. ORAL ORDER ( 25th March, 2006) The foUowiag order of the Coiut was passed by Satish K. AgaUiotri, J. The petitioners are employed as Assistant Grade-III and working in fhe same capacity in Accouuts Section at PubMc Works Departinent, Bilaspur. According to the petitioners, the Chief Eagincer (Plarmin^ in the ofBce of fhe Eagineer-In-Chief issued a circular to all the Chief Engineers on 6.12.2005 (Aimexure P/1) with a direction that the Serdor Accounts Clerks, Sub-divisional Clerks, Store Keepers, Auditors aud Budget Clerks should not be aUowed to work on one seat for niore than fhree years. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petttioners have inade a representatkin to the authorities on 3.10.2005 (Anaexure P/11) but fhe aufhorities have not yet responded. Leana.ed counsel for the petitioners, at this stege, cotifines his submission to consKleration of the representation made by fhe jpetitm^is^by the i//.S.'.fwfS'iu^s:^.;SSSEiB£SitSe@i:aB^S3®^Bi®^ \<- •• aufhorities within fhc stipulated tiine. Learued coiuisel for the respondeats has no objection to this submissioiL Acconlingly, fhe respondents are directed to consider aad decide the representation dated 3.10.2005 (Aunexurc P/11) filed by tbe petitioner, ia accordance wifh law, within a period of four weeks fl'om the date of receipt/production ofa copy of this order. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules. <- Sd/- SatishK.Agnibotri Judge Thakur