^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP.fS^No. 2002 of 2008 Petitioner No. 1. 2. 3. Vsrsus Respondents 1. 2. Suresh Kumar Pillai, S/o Late K.G. Pillai, aged about 41 years, woridng as Training Officer Stenographsr (Engiish), Women I.T.i. Bhiiai, PJo Qr. No. 1-A, Street No.3, Set, 02, Bhiiai, Durg (C.G.) Smt. Shaiini Girish Pillai, W/o Shri Girish Piiiai, aged about 47 years, working as Training Officer, Stenographer (language English), Women !.T.I. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Ku. Munni Runnisha, D/o. Mohd. Sarwar, aged about 48 yeare, working as Training officer (Dress Making) Women I.T.I. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretery, Man Power and Pianning Depar&nent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Employment and training, women polytechnic campus, Byran Bazaar, Raipur, (C.G.) WRST PETITOIN UNDER ARTICE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Singie Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate with Shri Vinod DeshmuWi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Atok Batehi, Govt. Advocate for the rsspondente. ORALORDER (Passed on this 4m day of April, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for Uie parties, the matter is heard finally. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are simiiariy shiated to the applicant in Original Application No. 1979 of 1891 (Safeh Kumar Mandloi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another), whteh was altov/ed vide order dated 26.11 .1984 (Annexure P/6). He further submits that this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2498/2005 I^^i^^^— /£^^\ I 1 ^-fcy p(l I-^ Thakur 3. 4. (Prakash Narayan Sinha & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another) passed ttie order on 7.2.2008 (Annexure P/5), considering the submission that the relief ciaimed in O.A.NO. 1979 of 1991 was the same, which the petitioners were claiming in W.P.(S) No. 2498/2(X)5. Leamed counsel prays that this petition be dtsposed of in the same tsrms. rf Shri Aiok Bakshi, tearned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents/State does not controvert the submission made by teamed counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned counse! submite that the same order may be passed subject to verification of the facts. In view of the categorical statement made by teamed counsel appearing for the respondente, ttiis petition is allowed, on verification of facts if found similar, in the same tenns i.e. if the Committee finds the petitionere suitabte for the post in alt respects, they shsit be regularized on ttie post held by fte petitionere and shall also pay ttiem salary on reguter scate. The petitioners shall be entifled to salary for the dates on break in service. —^___— _ -—- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge |Ii::rTTr-:7T-T';';'