/" G^ 1^0; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETTTION (S) N0. Q^^ OF 2011 PETmONERS : ^ ^."^^ ^ \<\ 'l^ ^y ".^s^ RESPONDENTS 1. Felix Clement Louis S/o Philip Louis, aged about 38 years, 2. Triloki Sahu S/o Late Firtu Ram Sahu aged about 39 years. 3. Lekhram Sahu S/o Late bukhit Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years 4. Kuleshwar Nirmal S/o Anjori Ram, aged about 38 years 5. Panna Lal S/o Khelan Singh, aged about 39 years, 6. Bhagwan Verma S/o Mahendra Verma , aged about 28 years. 7. Chandrika Dewangan S/o Kumar bewangan, aged about 22 years, 8. Vijay Patel S/o Bharat Patel aged about 37 years, 9. Kamal Narayan S/o Banwali. aged about 38 years 10 Smt. Rama Sahu wd/o Late Raju Sahu. aged about 27 years. AII the petitioners were working as daily wager employee in Electricity bepartment, under the Nagar Nigam. DurgCC.^.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Principal Secretary, bepartment of Urban ^ 2 ^ ^ .•" Administration and Development, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Under Secretary. Department of " Urban Administration & Development, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (CG). 3. Nagar Nigam Durg, through its Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Durg, District burg (CG). WRIT PETCTCON UNbER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTEON OF INDIA ^ -HC—78, NT*t^lT^Pff^i 'S^ET ^iqKn-q, ^hpR", (^c'ii^y u^..a)....z..i^./.u•^200 ^TT^T^f^ ( ^°l?j[<s<<^) 'STI^T^RT^NT TT^T ^TT^TiRTTT^' l^nw ^rf^r 3n^?T Praveen ISB : Hon*ble Shri Maniadra Iffohan Shrivastava, J.1 13.6.2011 Shri N. Naha Roy, couns^ Shri A.V. Shridhar, Pane^ No. 1 & 2, on advance copy. Leamed counsel for fhe involved tn this writ petit^on 10th February, 2011 passed in| Manikpuri <fe Ors. Vs. State of[ petitions. In tliat view of fhe m< disposed of in terms of fhe dated 10th February, 2011 p^ Manikpuri (supra). The case also be considered in accordafi paragraph -9 of the aforesaid (jirder. It is made clear that fhi^ ^ employees, who have beenj constitutional scheme of appo} CM^t<n€ilri>(i^<rif ^f f^t?!' Tfw$R ^^fflf3??^T |;1 for fhe petitioners. Lawyer for tlie State/respondents ^arties joinfly submit fhat the issue is covered by order dated |W.P. (8) No.7450/10 {VirendraDas Chhattisgarh 8s Ors] and batch of ^itter, fhis petition is also Imally Idirections contained in the order issed in the case of Virendra Dcis >f the petitioner in fhis case shall ice wifh the directives contaiaed in Court is not directing to retain fhe iUegaUy appointed, dehors the citment sdl:.sw^ta"a .^^a^ovlan' ^an^Ata^ud^ r