1. By W3 petitiam under Art§c£e 226/22? 6f the Constit-utiari 0f India the petitioners seek to chaHenge the ¥ega:?w; vaiidity and pmpriety :3f the wig d ted 13 72904 (ArneAure P/‘) whereby their services have been terminated in View of the cfder zesued “y the Gavemment Gf India Directorate ef Peahh Serv'Ms, New Dem w ef 31 004. . The pethwner" were appolnked 9‘ Vaueua paste mde V“ mue orders {Amexure PIZ) under the terma em eeedrtma i .d dawn m the said order; The eauer the yetrtlenera centmued te work cu the same eeet ' tit; the me gred erder dated 13 7 2004 ’Ar‘nexure P/1‘ we; paesed Learned couneet appearrng for the petrtrcnere. as wen as fer the (d reepondeete submit that the fecte and question cf tew tnvetved in the preeeht petétterr ’e similar to that tn the Writ Petitien No. i7§4i2003 (Sentesh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgerh & ethere) which wee disposed of vicie order dated 26.5.2003. wherein it has been eireetect that “if the petittoher makee a representation within a period ct (me month from today‘ concerne au‘he ’ ehai' look into the matter and if the eervicee ef the petitioner n be absorbed then they an eoneider ‘ his ease for absorption/appointment.” 4. m mew of the above thr etitien stan edispoeee of with the direction “at if the petitiehere make a reereeentetion to the concerned authority within a period of one month from today‘ it shaii consider and decide the same on ite own meriter in accordance with iaw‘ within a reaeonabie period. if it is eerm’itted to absorb the petitionersi then they should consider their oaeee for absorption/reappointment in services. ConsequentiyJViCJt’W No. 1920/2004 and 2949/2004 stand disposed Af t Ur. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihoui Judge Thakur