(D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR (C.G.} WBIT PETITION (St NQ. Sftfi?, QF 2Q1Q PETIIIONERS ^^° ^<y ^ r. 2. 3; ^^ Bharat Lal Yadav Son of Shri Tulsi Ram Yadav, aged about 39 years, Resident of Village and Post Sivni (Naila), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Pradeep Kumar Bajpayee Son of Shri S, B. Bajpayee, gge^ about 41 years, Resident of Q. No. M.J.G. - 43 Shivaji Nagar, Korbc (C.G.). Vedprakash Khare Son of Shri Dwarika Prasad Khare, aged about 42 years, Resjdent of Village and Post Kosmanda, PQlice Station and Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G-). Rajkumar Banwa Son of Shri Phoolsay Banwa, aged about 42 years, Resjdent of VUlage and Post Farid, Police Station Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, Djstrict -lanjgir-Champa (C.G.). Ganesh Prasad Tiwari Son of Late Shri Sugreeva Prasad Tiwari, aged about 39 years, Resident of Tiwari S.T.D. P.C.O., In front Apolto Hospitals, Uhgiyadeeh, BHaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). pBBC--^ VEBSUS RESPONDENTS. ; 1.' Coal India Limited, through its Chairman, 1Q, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata (W.B.). 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, thFQugh its Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bllaspur (C.G-), 3.' Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalflelds Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Labour), South Eastern Coalfletds Umited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). W&IT PETIIION UNDER AKTICLE 226 OE THE CONSIEIUJION OE JNDIA ^EE; "4|<(|<'|<t|, ®t)|<H'|(o,Iq<v1iyi,< . uj^frjt^'33^/10 l*i!<*> sn^v w K;-ii4 ^srr 'STT^T sh+ii<^ Tumane sn^r •ET=R)' (Tpf^si^q) T^iiwnftT sn^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastavai J. 30-07-2010 Shri D. K. Vishwakarma, cou|isel fbr the petitioners. Heard. Submission of learned counl dated 29-04-2010 passed in Writ \ the Apprentioe squarely applies irj direct the petitionere to approach parity. . Aocordingly, this petition is petitioners to approach respondent by the petitioners, respondent No.^ with law. CMel[fl<lit1 TTR^¥^ 1^^ <r<q-^.l< ^?3ifitH3nt?i sel for the petitioners is that the order ^ppeal No.340 of 2009 with regard to the case of the petitioners and the petitioners are also entitled to the s^me benefit. In view of the submission rrlade above, it would be appropriate to respondent authorities claiming such finally disposed ofF with liberty to the No.2. In case, representations are filed shall decide the same in acoordance Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrwastava Judge