?% EIGE COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1331 of;2003 I : 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta, aged a1bout 57 yeam, son of PETITIONERS Shri Ram Narayan Gupta, kpresently working as f ~« Revenue Inspector, Colléctorate, Land Record Branch Kawaidha, Distt. Kabeerdham (CG) 2. Bhola i’rasad Kachhi, aged about 41 years; sma of Shri Makhan Lal Kachhi, presently working as v Peon, Cellectorate, Hand Record Branch, Kawardha, Distt. Kabeerdham (C.G.) VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary’ Dau Kalvan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). o . 2. State 0% Madhya Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, Govemmem of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3. Commissioner Land Records and Settiement, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 4. Conm1iSSioner, Laud ' Records and Settlement, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Unioo of Iodia, through the Ministry of PemomeL Pubiic Grievance and Pension, Depamnent of Personnel and Training, Government of India, Khan Market, New Delhi. ‘ RES?0NDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTX’IU'I’ION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. AgnihotrigJ. I’resem: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Akivocate for the petitiooers. Shri ASKachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent No. l and 4. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate on behalf of $hri S.K.Beriwal, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. ORAL ORDER (l’assed on 17a; day of March, 2008) LA. No. 01. This is an application for amendment in the cause title. The application is ordered as prayed for. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to make neceseary corrections during the course ofthe day. toe x a l ‘1 77‘ a l l 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sub£nits that he does not want to press this petition on merit except that the potitioners be permitted to make a representation to the Committee in light of the judgment and order dated 17m April, 2007 passed by this Court in B.R.Godboie Vs. Municipal Corporation Durg and others {2007(2) CGLJE 417}, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State have no objection. . Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the Committee so constituted is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners, if their representations are not considered earlier. In the event, if it is not considered earlier, the hesh representation may be considered, as eariy as possible within a period of four months don; the date of receipt of representation. The representations may be considered keeping in mind the fact of residence and posting of the empioyee in one State and posting of the spouse in other State. This exercise on the part of the Government of India may be completed Within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. 1‘ sd/_ I : Judge, \ ////\—‘ i Satish KoAgnihw‘i" if i , Huger... Amit