HiGi-i COURT OF CHHAT?!$GARH: BILASPUR Wfi: Petition (S) No. 861 of 2008 Petitioners 1) Jagdish Prasad Amraudiva S/o. Shri Shobha Chandra, aged about 5O yéazrs, presentiy working as Revenue mspectnr in the Office of Coiiectorate. Revenue Branch, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). 2) Kaiyan Sing'n Markq son of Shri Puran Singh aged abcut 54 years, presentw working as Revenue {nspector in the cffice of Coilectarate, Revenue Branch, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Remandgaon (CG). 3) Ravindra Tripathi, son of Shri Praeidh Narayan, aged about‘ 55 years, presently working as Revenue inspector, in the office of Col§eetoraie, Revenue Branch Distt. Rejnandgaon (CG). 4) Jai Govind Sing’n son of Jag Bandan Singh, aged about 52 years: presentiy workmg as Revenue fnepector, in the Office of Conecteratei Rainandgaon (CG), 5) Ramesh Kumar Mishra; son of Shri Same La: Mishray aged about 48 years, working as Revenue inspeotor in the office of Coiieoiorafe (Land Records), Diett. Raigarh (CG). 6) Vindhyes‘nwari Prasad Dwivedi; son of Laiman Dwivedi, aged about 51 years, working as Revenue insipector in the office of Coiiectoraie u. (Land Records), Distt. Koriya (CG). 7) ‘Ram Viehwae )8akei son of Shri Heera La! Saket i aged about 56 years, working as Revenue i inspector, in the office of Coiiectoraie (Land Record), Disti, Rajnandgoan (CG) 8) Ripusudan Prasad Upadhyay, aged about 52f years, son of Shri Akhand Manda! Prasasd Upiadhay, working as Revenue inspector, Coiieetorate (Land Record), Koriya, Dist: Koriya (CG). s) Vijay Bahadur Dubey, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Raikishore Dubey, working as Tresser, Coiiec'rorate. Kawardha, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG). Versus Respondents “1) State of Chnattisgar'n, through the Chief Secretary, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, Governmetn of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopai 3‘, Comissioner Land Records and Settiement, State of Madhya Pradesh, Gwaiior (MP) 4) Commissioner Land Reoorsds and Seiiement, State of Madhya Pradesh, Gwaiior (MP) W! 5) Centrai Government (Union or inma) inrouqh —~ Secretary, Depit at Home Affairs New Dem: (Writ Petition Articie under Articée 226 of the Constitufmn of india ) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shn‘ RK. KEsharwani, caunsel forthe petitioners W Shri Alak Baksm, Govt. Advocate far the State. ORAL GRDER (Fa5sed on 11’“ February; 2QQ8) Learned counsel appearing ror the penuoners submits that he does not want to press thie petition on merit except that tne petitioners be permiileo to make a represenfetion to the Fommittee m the light of the iuogment and order dated. 17"" Aprit! 2007 passed by this Court in BR Godbote Vs. Municipat Corporation Durg, copy of this order. and others ( 2007 (2) CGLJ 417), to which teamed counsei appearing for the respondents/State has no objection. 2) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i e the Committee so constituted is directed to consmier the representations made by tne petitioners if their representations are not constdered earner or if their representations have rot been considered rainy as eariy as posSibie Within a period or three months rrom the , date or Constitution of the Committee The representations may 0e coriSioered Keeping in mind the fact of residence and posting of the empioyees in one State and posting of the spouse in other State. This exercise on the part of the Government of Jndia may be compieted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a ‘3 Sd/- I Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge ’ i Raju