CFOOOOZ81863 -1-5-/0 S27/6J aa IN THE STATE ADMIHISTBAJIVE TRIBumL,M.P.3ABAIJpy&.ga !1 O.A.Na' V^fe OF 1992 " :':1 ;^.^i Petiti.BaeE:- KaBlesia Kianac Steii.wastava, / ^ Applieatrfc: s®Baf late Chhabalal Shriwasiava, ageA^ abaat 24.y.aEs.iS9ivj:ag'' as v . t^per DivisiaB TeaetiBr ytts^e^-a-t Gavt.iixgbe.E SeeaadaEy1 Se&aol, ' ^ T»Rgp»ti,residaB'fcaf Tsisgpal, Oistric't: Bas'i.ar. !i:Si Versus RsspaBdeat.s:- 1. The S-l-ate •f M.P.^ Nen" appltcants 'thBeygh the SecEetazy, Tribal Welfare &epa3:'fcneH't, '^» 2. Caamissioner/President, . ^ Basfcar Mim •Jat3. AwanABusHeliifc •^;[IB Ja-bl Regxftnal Obv»lepBiei3it Auttisr-^ ' ity,Jagda.4>ur,Dtstrlet Bas-tAE. SETAILS_ GF__APPLIGA:EION •:'t5l li :1; } ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUfi \ (,/- SSNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Petitioner Respondsnts WRIT PETiTiQN (S.) N0.527 OF 2005 Kamlesh Kumar Shrivastava versus The State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) and another Petitjoner Respondents WRIT PETITiON (S.) N0.528 OF 2005 RajiVarghese versus The State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) and another Present : Mr. Prafull Bharat.counsel forthepetitioners. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Arvind Dubey, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondente. (Passed on 10"' Day of January, 2007) Learned counse! appearing for the parties jointly submit that the facts and question of law involved in the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Akhileshker Sharma and anothar vs. Tfte State of Madhya Pradesh iirBMii— sss± f./' y •^•-^* Qopa! flVow Chhattisgarh) snc? offiers (Writ Petition (S.) No.518 of 2005), dated 7-7-2006. 1-' 2. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are altowed in terms of the decision of this Court in ths matter 6f Akhileshker Sharma and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Wow ChhaUisgarh) and others (Supra). No order as to costs. 3. A copy of this ordsr be piaced onthe record of the connected petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge iiltil