v. ^ Mie(itfiOtlM^»E®NM»TT ©ARH AT BILASPUR WritJPetitia NQ.2iaM20b8 Petitioners 1. Radhtta Prasad Singh, S/o.Shri Ram Kripa! Singh, ^jed about 30 years, Ex-ITI Trade ApprenBce Fitter, Churcha West Colliery, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., ESstrid Surguja (C.G.) 2. Manbahadur Slngh, S/o. Shri Bhaiyalal Singh, ftged abeut 32 yeare, Ex-m Trade Apprenfice Fitter, Churcha West Colliery, Seulh Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Dlstrict Surguja (C.G.) 3. Amar Bahadur Singh, S/o. Shri Ram Pragash Singh, Aged about 38 ye^rs, Ex-ITi Trade Apprentice Fitter, Chureha West Colliery, Soutti Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Distrlct Surguja (C.G.) 4. Mrigendra Singh, S/o. Shrj Rajkishor Singh, Aged about 33 years, Ex-ITI Trade Apprentic® Electrician, Kumda, Bisrampur Area, South Eastern Coaliiekis Ltd., District Suiguja (C.G^ 5. Arvind Kuinar Sihgh, S/o. Shri R.P. Singh, Aged about 30 yeare, Ex-ITI Trade Apprentice Rtter, Chhal Sub Area, Raigarh Area, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Dfstrict Raigaiti (C^j 6. Saiva Sukh Smgh, S/o. Shri S.N. Stngh, Aged about 34 yeare, Ex-ITI Trade Apprenfice Eledroian, Bhatgaon Area, South Eastem Coaffields Ltd., Dlstrict Suiguja (0^3.) 7. Prabodh Singh, S/o. Blndeshwari Singli, Aged about 31 years. Ex-ITI Trade ^prenttee; FWtm.: Soutti Eastem CoaMelds Ud., CoHiery.DistriG^SBigiga^S^ Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Chalrman, Ceal India Limtod, 10, Subhash Road, Kolkata Chairman-cum-Managlng Dirieetor, Soyth Eastern Coaffialds LM.; Seepat Road, Bitaspur (C.G.) Director (Pereonnel), South Eastem C<»lftleds Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 31 ..SS!'***'1".asN :».sf\ ,^SSS^'' \ B/- WRrrpeTtTieM<€iN^i»ARr» ^e INDUfc (SB: Hon'bteMr.JusticeSatBhK.Agnihotrt) Shri Amit Verma, Advocate tor the petitionere. Shri Praveen Das, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 12m day of Juiy, 2007) Learned counsel appearing fbr the petittonere submits that the petitioners are similarly situated to that of the respondents in the matter of Chairman, Centrat Coalfletds L-ld. & oftere Vs. Jivendra Prasad Tiwari & ottiers (Chril Appeal No. 1714 of 2007). Learned counsel further submits <hat the sald Chnl Appeal has been disposed of vide order dated 29 Mwch, 20)7, passed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court of India. Leamed counsel further submils that this case may also be disposed of In the same terms, to whteh ttie teamed counsel appeartng fw the respondents/S.E.C.L. does not conto'overt. In view of the above, the petiton stands dlspo»d of m the same tenns. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge