€ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SRetitioners 1. Maljk Ram Sahu, S/o. Jagat Ram Sahu, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Bakii, P.Q. Rajim, Tehsil Rajim, district Raipur 2. .Goyjndram Dhimar, S/o. Harkhuram dhimar, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Arand, P.0. Basjn, Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur(C.G.) • .3. Chamaruram Rawat, S/o. Late shri Guhan Ram dhimar, Aged about 50 years,,R/o. village Bakli, P.0. Rajim, fetrict Raipur (C.G.) 4. CHhotoo Ram Dhimar, 5/o. Late shri ©uhanRam dhimar, Aged about 50 years R/&; village Bakli, P.Q. Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Ghhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Englneer-in-Chief, Pubflc Works Dspartment, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department,Raipur(C.G.) 4. Sub-DMsionai Officer, Public Works Department, sub-division Rajim, Distt. Raipyr(C.G.) 1'Writ Petition underArticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Justice Satish K. AanihoSri Present : Shri R.K. Pali, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on 28th June, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents/State jointly submit that the facte of the present case are similar to that of in W.P.(S) No.2879-of 7 (Mani Ram Sahu& others Vs. State of Chhattisggarh & others), whlch vras allowed vide order dated 10.05.2007. They further submit that the question of lawjnvoived is also the same. lliW5 -^^^}Ss?^9SSl 2. In view ofthe above stated submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitton is allowed in terms of She order dated 10.05.2007 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No.2879 of 2007, Noorderastocosts. r Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge