1~ C^f'^ IN THB HON»BLBHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(SI N0.^33 9 /2009 PETITIONBRS ....••(>0 ,\/,v'A ^y. ^s^ '%B>)?'K ^ ^••••^^ ^y y RESPONDENTS ^ '. ^' 1. Smt. Jamani Ekka, W/o Sandhya Toppo, aged about 50 years, Tribal Welfare Primary School, Khanvatoli, Block- Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Mangrita Minj, W/o Gabrial Xalxo,, aged about 50 years, working as Govt. Primary School, Charaimara, Block- Kunkuri, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block -Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) r ^ 4- -TU^W^ ^^^- Treasury, Account 8s Pension Jashpur, Distt.-Jashpur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA. ^-^— ^^v'"-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7339 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Smt. Jamani Ekka & Another RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K, Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER<ORAU (Passed on thjs 16th day of December, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for ie parties, ttie petition is heard finally. 2. At the very outeet, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioneis submits that this petition is squarely covered by the decisiori of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2008 (Satil Kant Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and prays that simiiar relief may be granted in case of the present petitioners also. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits ttiat in the event the petitioner submits a detailed representation ttie same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Salil Kant Singh (supra), subjectto verificatson offacts. 4. !n view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Thakur judge