PETITIONER 0‘... RESPONDENTS / w / TI gnu-A 'on—3, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) §° WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTI H AT BILASP 4% b 12004 ar Age 48 years S/o Sapurarl Kom D1V1s10n, D. Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Stat€ of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretay, Public Works Deptt. Marltralaya, DKS Bhawan—Raipur (C.G.) Sub—Divisional Officer, PWD, Bilaspr ON OF 1ND1A W iij'le_._ 7T? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR WRIT PETITION NO Johan Bljhw Sub—Engmear, .v" UR PW u fjIQg QQQB! QE QHEATTI§§AEH A! BILA§PgR 2;) / Wm § Pe‘ri‘rioner : Sudhrdm Versus Respondenfs : S‘mfe of Chha'f'risgarh and ano‘fher w. P. NoA 3133 of 20d4 Pe+i+ioner : MohH Ram Versus Respondenfs Sm're of Chhaffisgarh and ano‘fher W. P. No. 3279 of 2004 Pe'fi‘rioner : Durdgshi Versus Respondenfs Sfafe of Chhcd'fisgqrh and unofher W,’PA No. 4g29 of 2004 Pe'fifioners : Shobha Ram and ofhers Versus Respondewfs S'm‘re of Chhaf‘l'isgarh and anofher‘ i 5 W. P. No. 4830 0f 2004 Jchcxn Bijhwar P¢+i+igner 7 Respondenfs 5+a+e of Chhaf‘fisgarh and anofher V Versus w. P. No. 5027 of 2004 ; ‘ xx: ‘ Q Pefifioners Versus : Leela Bui and anafher Responden‘rs Sm‘fe of Chhaf‘risgarh and ano‘fher yaw Pe'fi'rioners Bajraha Ram and o'rhers Responden'fs Versus . Sfa're of Chha'H'iSgat-h and o'l‘hers And W. P. (s! No. 614 of 2007 ‘ Pefifioners : Ju‘rhel Yadav and oTher's Versus o Respondents Sfa're of Chha'Hisgarh and ano'rher \ 7,, 5 / SB: Hon’ble Mr. Jus‘rice Safish K. Agniho‘tri. J Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for 1he petifioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for #he respondanfs/Sfnfe. O R D E R (Passed on 1" day of February, 2007) The following order of fhe Cour? is passed by Safish K. Agnlho‘l'ri. J. 1. l earned counsel appearing for The pe‘ri'rioners as well as learned Panel 4? lawyer appearing for fhe responden'fs/S‘lnfe joinfly submif 'rhaf fhe facfs of fhe presenf case are similar 1'o fha‘r of in W. P. No. 454/2005 (Ram Prasad Vadav (St ofhers vs. Sme of Chha'rfisgarh & ofhers), which was allowed vide order dated 4.1.2007. They fur'lher wbmif that the question of law involved is also the same. 2. In view of the above stated submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 454/2005. No order as to costs. \ } 3. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected writ petitions. Sd/— l ‘l ,‘ Sau‘sh K. Agm'hou-i Bablu " Judge z/y