^?2^ IN THE mGH COORT OF GHHAmSGASH AT WiitPetutMMi<C)No^ ^^5/2008 Petitioners II Respondents aAfe^ ^^p\y^ ,--y"^~ ^^ ^^- ^ -^ I. Uyawal Ekka, SA) S}Mi T. Ekka, Aged about 34 year _ ^ ^^ 2. PrafBilitEika,^e-Sfari XEkfca, Aged^bout 28 year Both resident ofGanesh Nagar, Baaspur(C.G.) VERSUS y/1, llie Stete ofGlihattisgarh,Through Secretary, Tnbal welfere Department, D.K..S. Bhawaa, Raipur. 2. Sub Divisional officer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspm-(C.G.) ^'3. Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur(G.G.) WMT PETITION UNDERA&TIO.JE 22€ •*^ s !S8' !^€K.-%. £ '"^ : '<?. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARHAT B1LASPUR Writ Petition (O No. 5905 of2008 PETITION.ERS : 1. Uijawal Ekka, S/o Shri T. Ekka, Aged about 34 year 2. Prafiillit Ekka, D/o Shri T. Ekka, Aged about 28 years Both resident ofGanesh Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). YEJffiSUS RESPONDENT8 : I. The State of Chhattisgarh througli Secretery, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. 8ub Divisional Ofiicer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3. Naib Tahsadar, Bilaspur, Distt. Baaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICUE 226 & 227 OF 'IHE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) <SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aauhotri. J.) Present : Shri Ashok Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. QRALORDER (Passed on 22nli day of October, 2008) With the consent ofleamed counsel app^ring for the parties, Ae matter is heardfinally. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners submits Ihat the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur by order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/5) has declined to grant caste certiticate on account ofthe fact that the ancestors ofthe petitioners belong to State ofJliarkhand. He further submits that the fe-ther ofthe petitionere is a goverament servant, who has been worked in the department ofRailway at Bilaspur Admittedly, by virtue ofthe posting ofthe father ofthe petitioners in the State pf Chhattisgarh, his case is goveraed by the circular dated 27.6.2007, issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh. The said circular came into consideration before a Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C)No. 5314 of2007 ( Ku. Bharti Banpuriya Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others). This Court by order dated 27.9.2007 after hearing leamed counsel for the petitioner observed as under: "Leamed Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State informs that the judgment ofthe leamed Smgle Judge was wrongly interpreted and m compliance of the judgaent in Writ Petifion No. 1. 2. 3. -'ss Saliu 4. 5. Jft 2510/2004 dated 04-02-2005, fhe Govermnent by an order dated i.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 06.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereatter the Govemment has issued anolfaer ca-der dated 27-06-2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained wtoch iacludes (i) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, Iheir spouses or chiidren; (ii) aU the employees of State of Chhattisgaifa, their spouses or cfaildren; , (ui) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by R-esident of India, their spouses or chUdren; (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Qffieials/Officers/employees, tiieir spoiises or children. This Govemment order is to benefit the petitioaers-students with respect to bonafide residents ofChhattisganli. We are ofthe considered opmion that once such persons have been recognized as residents of Chhattisgarh, tfaen the same analogy shall apply for Ihe purpose of the adnussions of childrffli of the categcaies refeired to hereinabove are eoncemed, if their caste is mcluded in the Presidential Order." The above orderdated 27.9.2007, it appears, has neifher been modified nor set-aside by the superior Court. Thus, the respondenl/Sub Divisional OfficCT (Revenue) is under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light ofthe circular dated 27.6.2007 and the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of2007. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. The order dated 30.062008 (Annexure P/5) is quashed and tiie matter is renritted to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur for fresh consideration and decision, in aceordance with ]aw. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge •A w" .-{-