s?;-"' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR (C.G.) -" W.P. N0. ...i^.3^2:^.. OF 2003 / % IN THE MATTER OF VIRENDRA SINGH JATAGE 44 YEARS SON OF SHRI LILA DHAR JAT, LECTURER SECONDARY SCHOOL NAGARI, DISTRICT' DHAMTARI (C.G.) , PERMANENT RESIDENTOF NARSINGHPUR (M.P.), AT PRESENT RESIDINT AT JANGALPARA, NAGARI, DISTRICT DHAMTARI (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS 1. UNIONOFINDIA THROUGH SECRETARY-DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, KHANMARKET NEW DELHI 2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH SECRETARY, (TRIBALWELFARE) MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL(M.P.) < STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, FHROUGH SECRETARY FRIBAL WELFARE), IIANTRALAYA, D.K.S. BHAWAN, G.E. ROAD, RAIPUR (C.G.) sq';<@/ .-•^' ;y RESPONDENTS ^f' '^ T^ $4^ f^-£^^'>^^Co^J \A^ T),-^2^<^< ^^c\^^-^^ ^oJJ>a\ -&VF^^ ^l^ ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI AND ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT ^^.^—— — -——— mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. WntPetitipnNo. 1772 of 20Q3 Petitioner Virendra Singh Jat Versus Respondents Union of India & others Shri M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Shri S. K. Beriwal, Staadmg coiiusel for Respondent No.l, Shri Sachini Singh Rajput for Respondents No. 2 and 4. Shn Paakaj Shrivastava, Paiiel lawyer for rcspondent No. 3, ORALORDER (6th February, 2006} The followmg order of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. 1. Leamed counsel appearuig for the petitioner siibinits fhat the petitioner, who is workuig on the post of Lcscturer (Chemistry) iii fhe Tribal Welfare Department, is a permanent resident of District- Nai'singhpur iii the State of Madhya Pxudesh. The petitioner has been aUocated to the State of Chhattisgarh axid he waats his reallocation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Leajmed counsel for fh.e petitioner, on instraction, subnxits fhat the petitioner be granted Uberty to make a representation to fhe respondeuts for redressal of his grievaiices. L^amed cozinsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to fhe said subinission. 2, In view offhe foregouig, fhe petition staiids disposed offiiially, wifh Uberty to tlie petitioner to maice aii appropriate representatioa to the respondents/azifliorities concenied, wifliia a period of iwo weeks frosa today, aad fhe respondents/azifhorities are directed to consider and decide the sajxie, ia mi objective manner, m acconiao.ee with law, withui a period of sbc weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, if aiiy. Certified copy, QJS per Rules, §^/. Satish K. Agnihotn Thakur J»dge '/ ^-