SES9HS (^ •it.'i cF / ETO DST THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. t ££/2006- &7 WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF TtIE CONSTITUTION 0_F1NDIA, PETITIONER Bhuvneshwar Prasad Pradhan, aged about 48 years, son of Late Jagannath Pradhan, Assistant Teacher, Govemment Tribal Primary School ,k^y^ Revre, Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ^VX9 (SL.NO. 1 of Annexure P-1) ^.l< ^>^\> c^-'- ^' rf' >•" ,<;?' ~y ^'^". ..-••" S^NDENTS s€1^ -°0^' ^^ ^:^.^' o^ ?^^' ^' <j3 VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal Welfare, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) ^. The Block Education officer, Block Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 01. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER As per cause title. -• a HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW W. P.fS) No. 117 of 2007 Petitjoners : Monsingh Khande ond others Verais Respondents : S-tate of 0»hattiS9<irhand o-thers W. P.(S\ No. 118 of 2007 Petittoners : Tejram Bhagut and others Versus Respondents : State of ChhattiS9arh and others W. P.fS) No. 121 of 2007 Petitioner : Sanjay Kumar Smha Verajs Re^wndents : State of Chhatfrisgarh and ano-ther W. P.(S) No. 126 of 2007 Petitioner : Bhuvneshwar Prasad Pradhan Versus Respondents : S-tate of Chhattisgarh ond others W.P./S) No. 127 of 20)7 Petitioner : Kulronjon Ekka Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond others W. P.fS^No. 128 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Bharti Bai Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarhand ano'ther W. P.(S) No. 129 of 2007 Petitioner ; Philos Akshay Mukut 71990 Versus ftespondents : State of Chhattis9arh cnd onother W. P.(S) No. 130 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Prastidi Bhagat Versus Respondents : State of Oihafhsgarh and anolher l& W. P.fS) No. 131 of 2007 Petitioner : Sagar Sai Versus Respondents : State of Chhsrtisgarh ond others W. P.(S) No. 133 of 2007 Petitioner : Inus Bek Versus Respondents : State of ChhattiS9arh and onother W. P.(S) No. 134 of 2007 Petitioner : Baliram Bhcgat Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 135 of 2007 Petitioner : Avmash Chandra Xalco Versus Respondents : State of ChhattiS9arh cuid o-thers W. P.(S) No 136 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Shashikala Bha9at Versus Respondents : State of Chhatlisgarh ond another W. P.(S) No. 137 of 2007 Petitioner : Chhanduram Bhagat Versus Respondents : State of Chhartis9arh and ano-ther W. P./S) No. 139 of 2007 Petitioner : Ku. Clementina ^990 Versus Respondents ; State of ChhattiS9arh and ano-riier W. P.(S) No. 145 of 2007 Petitioner : Krishna ftam Pa+el Versus Respondents : State of Chhcrttisgarh did o-thers W. P.fS)No. 147ofa)07 Petitioner ; Laxminaroyun Patel Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and onother W. P.(S) No. 149 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Maxi Mitiycni Toppo Versus Reqwndents : State of Oihatl'isgcu+i ond another W. P.fSV No. 150 of 2007 Petitioner : Smt. Rajmani Versus Respondents ; Sta'te of Chhattisgarh o»idothers W. P.(S) No. 151 of 2007 Petitkmer : Chamru Ram Nagdeo Versus Respondents ; State of ChhatHsgarh cnd others W. P.fSl No. 159 of 2007 Petitioner ; fionesh Kam Pradhan Versus Respondents : State of ChhaMisgarh ond ono-ther W. P.(S) No. 161 of 2007 Petitioner ; Chhotelal Khcnna Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another W. P.(S) No. 165 of 2007 Petitioner : Ramkumar Choudhari Versus Re^iondents ; State of Chhattisgarh ond another And W P.(S) No. 168 of 2007 Petitioner : Brijmohan Nayak Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh ond ano'ther SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Strtish K. Ayiihotri, J Present: Mr. A.N. Bhakta. Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mrs. Anju Ahuju, Deput/ Sovemment Advooate, Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer, Ms. Sunita Jain, Ponel Lawyer for 1+ie respondents/Stnte. Oft&ER O'assed on this 17tl> Doy of Jonuary, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel oppearing for the petitioners as well as for •the Stcrte/respondents jointly submit that the facts of the present writ petitions are similnr to that of in W. P. (5) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Titwri and others vs. State Sovemment of ChhattiS9arh & others), which NWS allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006. They fur-ther submit that the question of law involved is also the same. 2. In view of the above-started submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties, •these wrtt petitions are allowed in terms of Ihe order; dated 7.11.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. (5.) No. 5976/20061 (Sushil Tiwari ond others vs. State Sovemment of Chhatti^arh & others). No order as to costs. Subhodi 3. A copy of -this order be ptoced on record n other cormected writ petition. —_ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge