® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. t3) 5‘37y2006 smgg—E 3WW PETITIONERS: 1. Ramendra Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Baldeo Sahay Sinha, aged 69 years, R/O KatiyaPara Durga Chowk, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 2. Prem Narayan Singraul Son of Late Shiv Sampat Prasad / Singraul aged 68 years, R/O Near Holika Chowk Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS W917“? RESPONDENTS: 1 . State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department Government o£ Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Jhanaklal Moti Lal Pandey Higher Secondary School Takhatpur, Distt.. Bilaspur (C.G.) District Education Officer Bilaspur (C.G.) CONSTITUTION OF IND WRIT. WRIT PETITION UNDER IA FOR ISSUANCE ARTICLE OF 226 APPROPRIATE l 227 OF ; 1 _ t FM—, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5371 of 2006 PETITIONERS : Ramendra Prasad Sinha & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N.R0y, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1&3. None for the respondent No. 2, despite service ofnotice. ORDER g ORAL! (Passed on 05 day ofMarch, 201 1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that similarly situated employees, who were working in the institutions had been granted relief by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in C.A.Bhakhare v. State of Mad/1ya Pradesh & Others 1 , and thereafter, by this Court in KD.Saggar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2. Shri Shukla prays that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the respondent authorities in View of the above stated decisions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to the above submission. Accordingly, in View of the above, if a representation is made by \ s the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law on its own merit and perspective, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotr’ Judge M. vx~- .‘N \. 1 \ ‘ 1987 MPLJ 509 2 W.P. No. 1182/2001, decided on 6.8.2004 i