CHQ‘CKg/ Q UDICATURE AT BILASPUR gC.G.[ 0. {g47 /2004 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF J WRIT PETITION N PETITIONERS 1. Ramakant ’Tripathi, S/o. Awadhesh Prasad Tripathi, Aged 34 years, Constable No.346, P.S. Chintagupha, District Dantewada (C.G.). 2. Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava, S/o. Chhotelal Shrivastava, Age 33 years, Constable No. 445 P.SI Dantewada, District Dantewada.(C.GI) 3. Premnarayan Singh, S/o. Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Age 23 years, Constable Not 324 (old No. 948) P.S. Beejapur, Distt. Beejapur, (C.G.) O‘w\L: y w“? 0 Shankar Dayal Mishra, S/o. Chandramoul Mishra, Q\$N‘l 10 W“ x b»GV‘ Age 32 years, Constable Nor 246(Old N0. 359) ¢$¥X?$\\ U Police Line — Beej apur, Distt. Beej apur (C.G)I ¢$¥X?$\\ 5. Keshav Prasad Mishra, S/o. Shri Chandramoul Mishra, Age 30 years, Contable N0. 272, P.S. Geedam, Distt. Dantewada (C.GI) 6. Rajkumar Mishra, S/o. Ambika Prasad Mishrat Age 32 years, Head Constable No. 308, P.S. Muraiguda, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 7. Ramdev Mishra, S/o. Shri Narayan Prasad Mishra, Age 31 years, Constable N0, 1287, Police Line Beejapur, District Beejapur (C.G.) 8. Shivdayal Sanodiya, S/o. Birbal Sanodiya, Age 41 years, Head Constable No ...... , Police Line Beejapur, District Beejapur (C.Gi) 9. Divakar Singh. Baghel, S/o. Gajmohan Singh ' Baghel, Age 37 years, Constable N0. 717, P.S. Chintagufa, District Dantewada,(C.G.) VERSUS . K RESPONDENTS l. Union of India, ’ t" _1 Through Secretary, I . 3 -‘ " Public Grievances and Govt. of India. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department ofHome (Police) Raipur (CG) XI-HC—22 magggmctg‘wggw mg mm Wm WW WIW éawm 09.07.2004 matter is taken up. Shri Y.C.Sharma, céunsel fo the pen‘tioners. ’ Shn’ S.K. Bcriwal, Seni India/respondent no. 1 on advanc copy. Shri V V S Murthy, Dep Advocate General Wlth Shn Akhll Agrawal Panel Lawyer for 1'11 State LA. No.4350/ 2004 for urg Heard. Counsel for the petitioners s bmite that the matter relates to allocation of petitioners. He fuxth r submits that in similar matter i.e,, W.P.No.578[ 2004 (Balendra hekhar Mishra and others —vs— Union of India and others) orders have been passed by this Court on 17. 12.2003. He also produ ed a icopy of the order dated 18.6.2004 passed in W.P. 1560/ 04 (Jitendra Singh Tamar and others —vs- Union of India and 0th rs). Leanied counsel prays that similar order may be passed in thi case also Learned counsel for the res ndents submitted that relying on the statement of counsel for ihe pennoner made at the Bar sunllar orders may be passed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and considering the statement made by counsel for the petitioner at the Bar and in view of the judgment/orders cited above and further the legal position, the action of the State \ On a mentinn being made, Panel Lawyer for Union of hearmg is allowed. L Authorities in not relieving the peu‘tioners canngt be sustained and we are}. \ e o u e XI-HC-22 _the peu‘n'onels am entitled for #eh‘eving. The mspondents am directed to mlisve the petm''oners mthm 15 days fmm the date of production of a copy of this ordain ‘Accordingly, this petition s ds disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. 1648/ 004 also stands di,sposed of. C.C. as per rules. dwsgLV, Sd/- i Fakhruddin ; Judge V ,k “K