$~a§n§§w §%%i£%zp S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PEHTIOMS) No‘ $866 /2010. PETITIONERS: / 1. Sanjeevan Ram, son of Ram Sundar Ram, aged about 28 years, working as Watchman, Govt. Ashram School, Rangpur, Block Bagicha,, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Neelam Sanjeev Minj, son of Himathiyus Minj, aged about 3O years, working as Watchman, Govt. Ashram School, Chundapat, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sushila Yadav, daughter of Lidu Ram, aged about 25 years, working as Waterman, Govt. Ashram School, a Saraskambo, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. VerSuS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.\ / 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. r3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. D~1 / / 5. Block Education Officer, Block Bagcha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. f, z WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTloN OF INDIA éa/ 51MB [ m V zoo mw (Wu) mmw ammm mmm muhaihnm‘§fs‘a?m $Wm [SB :vHon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.] 29.6.201 1 Shri C.J. K. Rao along wi Harish Khuntiya, counsel for t1 Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Learned counsel for the issue relating to claim of c0n1 other employees came up for g in W.P. (S) No.2004/11 and examining the claim of the directed consideration of the c: that the case of the petitioner order. On the other hand, le submits that the representati( decided after due verification. After going through the in W.P. (S) No.2004/11, it is petitioners are squarely cow Therefore, the petitioners ar direction in the case. Accordingly, it is directe fresh representation before the :h Shri Akshay Yadav and Shri 1e respective petitioners. Lawyer for the State. petitioners submits that the ractual payment to Cook and onsideration before this Court batch of petitions and after petitioners, this Court had ise in those cases. He submits s are covered by the aforesaid arned counsel for the State in of the petitioners would be order dated 134.2011 passed apparent that the case of the :red by the aforesaid order. e also entitled to the same d that if the petitioners make concerned authority, claiming KL; é/z 3’ '/ ya \ ’mmane paymen O mlnlmum employee under the Chhattis Appointment) Rules, 2004, the accordance with law, within a ] date of submission of represe adverse order, the petitioners V petition afresh. With the aforesaid dire disposed of. r’apptic‘a garh Civil Service (Contract same shall be disposed of-in )eriod of eight weeks from the lntation. In the event of any vould be at liberty to file writ :tion, the petition is finally Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge //, Wm W200 WWW mmm mwqdawq) mmam v23? mimhmafgém giaa‘mm