ww kEmw l //. J] \ C 6" €v7/\ O IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s)No. E f’b gé /zo1o Pe‘ri'rioners /’” :1. Mahendra Kumar' Agrawal, S/o Shri Mahaveer‘ Pmsad Agrawal, Aged about 55 years, Assis’ran‘r Grade—II a‘r Disfricf Educafion Office, Ambikapur‘, DisT’r. $urguja—(C.G.) sm’r. Su3hma Pm‘hak (Now Upadhyay), W/o Shri V.K.Upadhyay,’Aged abou? 45 years, Assis’mnf Grade—II af Dis‘rric’r Educa’rion Office, Ambikapur', Dist’r. Surguju—(C.5.) Dinesh Kumar §up1’a, S/o La‘re Shri Kedarm?h éup’ra, Aged abou? 48 years, Assis‘ram Teacher Gov’r, éiris pr§mary schcol Karji, %lack m Ambikapur, Digff. Surguja— (C.6.) Versus Responden?s /, :i. Sfa‘re of Chhaf’risgarh, Through — The Secremry, School Educa‘rion Deparfmenf, D.K.$. ghawah, Raipur, Dis'rf. ’Raipur—(C.G.) Sfafe of Chha’msgarh, Through - The, Secrefary, 'Trébai Weifare Department D.K.S. Qhawan, Raipur, DisTT. Raipur‘-(C.5.) 0g . Commssoner ii, h Te Tribal We elfar eparfmeh‘r, Ravi Shankar' Sukla Universify r D h , Cp RpCG amus, aiur-(..) ommissfoner‘ ublic nsw‘ruc’rion C, P Is, ivekanand Naa‘r, Raipur—(C.G.) V g The Assisfan‘r Commissioner, Tribal Welfar-e Dear’rmenf, Surguja—(C..) p 6 e Disfric’r Educafion Officer, ‘sTT. , Th Di ‘ Sja-(C.G) urgu. The Collector', Surguja, Dis’r’r. Surguja-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION / 7. O F INDIA _ r P‘ETITIONERS HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISQARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5356 OF 2010 Mahendra Kumar Agraw‘al & Qthers Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Alticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single'Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. ShriN.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) ,»a (Passed on this 20‘“ day of January, 201 1)- Heard Iearned counsel forthe parties. 2. Case of the petitioners is that initially the petitioners were appointe in the Department of Edu'cation. Vide order dated 31-10-2008 the respondent No.4 directed all the District Education Officers to provide the set up of Education Department. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation (Annexure — P/3) before the respondent authorities for absorption of their services in the Department of Tribal Welfare; but till date no action has been taken. The petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in C.L. Chandrakar. & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others’. '3. ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is disposed and directed th respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, in terms of the. decision of this Court in C.L. Chndraka Sdl- Satish K.Agnihotri; my Judge 1 WP (S) No‘.3437 or 2008 (decided on 10-3-2010) d e ar (supra).