c.^ ^o<->4 c\ SINGIE IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR t ^ W. P. (S) Noyn of 2009 PETITIONERS ^ ...•••:^0' ^ ^} j^y ^y^. ^y ^'^y ;'<y / : 1, Roshan Lal Sahu, S/o Jeewan Lal Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o C/o Pawan Kumar Sahu, Thanapara, Rajini, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Ain Kumari Sahu, W/o Hitesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Dhurvagudi, Block-Mainpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Suraj Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Umendrain Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village & Post Deori, Thana-Rajim, District-Raipur (C.G.) Bhuneshwar Ram Sen, S/o Shri Bisoharam Sen, aged about 29 years, R/o Bhendari (Rajim), Block-Kurud, District-Dharatari (C.G.) Tulsiram Sinha, S/o Paharu Ram Sinha, aged about 27 years, Occupation-Service, Shiksha Karnii Grade-III, Government Primary School Dhurvagudi, Block-Mainpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^' 6. Shahid Anjum Khan, S/o Shri Gulam Ishaque, aged about 27 years, Shiva Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Fingeshwar, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^ / RESPONDENTS . ^^- VERSUS /"State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) / fc^ o (2) ^' 3. Zila Panchayat Raipur, through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Raipur (C.G.) / 4. Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, through the Chief Executive Offlcer, District-Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARHATBILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 7381 of2009 PETmONERS RESPQNDENTS Roshan Lal Sahu & Ottiers. VER8U8 State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WMTPErmONUNDERARIlCLE226QFTHECQNSTnm*IONOFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aenihotri.JL Present: Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate fbrthe petitioners- Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govermnent Advocate forthe State. Shri Amn Sao, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 29th day of January, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the respondent No. 4 suhmits fhat fhe impugned termination order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P/l) has been recalled by order dated 22.12.2009 (Amiexurc R-4/1 to the retum filed by respondent No. 4) and as such, nofhing survives for adjudication. 2. Leamed couiisel appearing for the petitioners does not controvert the above submission. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infizictuous. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt