Leamed counsel appearing for 'the petitioner as weil as‘ for the State/respondents jointly submit that the fasts and question of law ' involved inthe preSent writ petition in respect to petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 are the same as to that of in W.P.(S) No. 5976/2006 (Sushil Tiwari and others Vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was allowed vide order dated 7.11.2006 Whereas the facts and question of law involved in the present writ petition in respect of petitioner no. 2 is same as to that of in WP. No. 5473/2006 (Rakesh Kumar Shanna & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was allowed’vide order dated 09. l 0.2006. In View ofthe above-stated submissions made by learned counsel for the ‘ paities, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge _