cf[ INTHEHIGHQJLJKTQFCHHATTiaSARH AT BILASPUR wjTt Petmnn No. ^53/2004 / (.0^ FETmONER ; &udarehanC<'wanganS/ofFaTK-Iiatnn r.tewangari, aged about 44^reaT5, ?_/o vTUaffe- ')a. iJistT^rt ^.1£4^^ L^.KU.I'Jt Janjgir a-Miiya (CG.). RESPONDENT e •i<^'\^t-:^ ^'^"'' W Fi* ^.-rA^ ^ •r^ <0 •^ s,^ VefStss- : 1. State of Chhattisg.u-h. ThroughSecretaty, E^iattmertt Ctf Public VVorks, Mantt-aluya, Si Chowk, P-Bripi.ir(CG). 2. Superintendmg Engineer, PubUc "Vori-s Deparfaiient, Klaspur(CG). Slni PointTfla-iSnghRfljinit S/o Stwl EAKhuiiath St-ij""., Aged about 42 yeafs, Worieu'ig as ra-afts &lan, R/o aTutiipa, Ustaict- Jaiuar Champa (C-G.). ^ 4. Sh-ri BrijshKiar.ar Gupta, S/o Shri R'nnprasad Gupta. Aged about 39 yeare, Workmg as Tracer, R/o Gud, Disiiict- fewa. (M.P.) °^*' \\.--^' y 5- s^1:S shK!-i .a'P.ai.dOT, .* n ^s/f^ M<^' tm{~^'¥Am SCrde^i S^is^i'i t'4' ^.'^s f.JS^S'yvi ottice ot '.D. Pendra. ^^ ^' Eistrict- Bilaspur rr" r:-1. '^-^•t^^f •%• 6. Eihri Avocihya PrasadTniswiiL S/o Not fcu"n'TL abo'uf 40 vear WorldriE as Trace-r intlie office of Enginee^ P.W.D. JS.01 D^. (^=ljj^ L ^^ Sitl D. E^ghiuiath, S/'o Late D. Raniarao, Aged aboiit 30 yeare, Working as Tracerin the of&ce Cif the Executive Engm.eer, P.V».D. ChaTnpa, Ustrict- Jarijpr QTampa^QG.) 8. Srrt- V- D. Da&, W/o Not fcnov^Ti, aged about 40 veare, V'forlan.g as Assistant Qrade-III tnttie ot bupet'uitetttluig p.wa (C' ^. v WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FO] OF A OF DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 159 of 2004 9. Petitioner Sudarshan Dewangan Versus Respondents State of Chliattisgarh aud ofhers Sii^e Bench : Hon'bfc Mr. Justice Satish K. A®ilhotri. Shn Ali Asgar, couasel for the petitioner. Sbri V.V.S. Moorthy, Depuly Advocate General with Smt Aaju Ahuja, Deputy Govenuuent Advocate for fhe respondeats No, 1 aad 2. None for the ofher respondents. ORAL ORDER (8th May, 2006) The foUowing order of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Learued counsel for fhe pefitioner submits on iastructions that fhe petitioner has aJready been regularized and as such no grievance siu-vives, to which leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents No. 1 and 2 have no objection. Accordiugly, the writ petition is dismissed as haviug becoine infhictuous. No onler as to costs. SA'- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I«T•nmimMiBMi— i^iM-®^^^@S!3^^@samSBS!5Bafc=r