IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0.^^^/2010 ^ APPLLICANTS W.P.S. N0. 1901/2005 1. Ram Naresh Shukla, agedabout 31 years, son of Shiv Prasad Shukla, daily wager Hammal. ^fi. &, p^,....' "'* Bg^., •r'-^ b. l!6U.!.lv ^^ y\ "^^ "'^;s^ 2. Ranjeet Singh aged about 29 years, son of Ram Bali Singh, Hammal. 3. Vijay Singh aged about 30 years, son of Pahalwan Singh. 4. Ramesh Pratap Singh, 9Qed about ! Lilr-'!I^ J.11L1_UL faUJ^ 1HI U' i 35 years, sort of Umrab Sirigh;1 ! ' ' 5. Sarju Ram, aged about 35 years, son of Sitaram. 6. Sadanand Das, aged about 35 years/son of Urkaram, Chowkidar. 7. Shiv Bharose, aged about 36 years, son of Jhurka Ram, Mali. 8. Govardhan Rao, aged about 33 years, son of Mansaram, Sweper. 9. Rajuram, aged about 28 years, son of Ramcharan, Sweper. (Dead) 10. Khemchand, aged about 28 years, son of late Murlidhar, Chowkidar. 11. Hari Prasad, aged about 43 years, son of Rama, Cook. Applicants No. 1 to 8 & No. 10 and 11 working a daily wagers in Government Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (M.P.) now (Chhattisgarh). k»v; RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) through the Secretary Manpower & Planning Department, Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal. 2. The Prindpal Government Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (M.P.) now C.G. 3. The Director, Technical Education Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) (^nowChhattisgarh) ^<^^\l APPLICATION^QR_RESTORATION OF WRIT PETITION fS) N0. 1901/2005."O.A. N0. 1615/2000 (S.B.} DISMISSED FOR WANT X QEPROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2009. [o "^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR M.C.C.NO^ 225 _0_F 2010 APPLICANTS •RESPONDENTS Ram Naresh Shukla & Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattjsgarh) & Others (Appiicatlon for Restoration ofWrit Petitlon (S) No.1901/2005) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shn Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- None for the appllcants. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of October, 2011) 1. The matter is cailed for hearing tvi/ice. None appears nor is any representatlon made on behsif of the applicants. The applicants may not be Interested In pursuing the matter. 2. in view of the above, the matter Is disrnissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 3^n ,