b / J Smwggz Wvméa M ‘ (A w.P. No. €153 of2005 § PETITIONER V // :QRESPONDENTS 1) //4) 12$ 05 QECENE§ (3G? TH; y: w ég’ NQH m w W Vunsal 3x. (13m $ / r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHA’I‘TISGARH Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi, S/o. Shri D.N. Chaturvedi, aged about 44 Assistant Engineer W.R.D. Raigarh S.D.O. Kelo Survey Sub Division No.2 Raigarh (C.G.), years, Occupation Kasturba Prade sh. Permanent Resident of A—57 Nagar Bhopal Madhya VERSUS Union of India Through Secretary Department of personal 81, training, Govt. of India New Delhi State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) State of M.P. Through Secretary — Water Resources Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. Chairman of the State Advisory Board, Bhopal (M.P.) A Board Presided over by Shri K.S. Sharma Constituted U/Sec. 71 of M.P. Reorganisation Act. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 85 227 OF W y CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WW mqi%?r mmmm aiiocation' of their services m the The petitioner’s whole family; his of Madhya Pradesh, and he is petitioner. teamed counsel forthe petitioner submits that in View of the orders passed by this Court. the-Central Government has constituted a Committee to consider the representations 7-4-2005 On a mention being made, Mrs. Hamida Siddique, cot. Mr. S.K. Beriwal, Senior F No.1 Mr. Akhi! Agrawai, Panel La Heard. The petitioner is workir Ig as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Raigarh. The case of the petitioner is that after reorganisation of the State, optionswere invited from the employees for mother State or the State of Chhattisgarh and in that, the petitioner gave his option. for the State of Madhya Pradesh. mother. and father are residing in the State resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the Central Government decided to allocate the services of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh against the option given by the I i therefore, his case is not being‘ of various State employees for change of their allocation. Since, the petitioner had not filed the petition earlier, considered by the said Committee. in the circumstances, learned counsel submits with ta limited request on behalf of the petitioner that now,‘the representation to the Union of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Fred allocation. Learned counsel fu the ease is taken up for hearing inset for the petitioner. ‘ ‘anei Counsel for Union of indie/respondent awyer for the State/respondent No.2. petitioner may be allowed to make a lndia, through the State Governments of h for consideration of his difficulties and re- er submits that the petitioner has already A .q i XI—HC-22