®;y ^^1 ^ ^ c P\^.2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W . P. (Sl N0. I^^. 1 2007 Petitioner ^ %,-\ r.^' ^f9 ^S.:J^^ '^".•'f^'t^' <^- '^^/ :."'y'y ^; t-- •><!.£li ^ s ^" Versus Yudhishtir Mali, Aged about 48 Years, S/o Shri Jagat Mali, Working as Gangman, in permanent gang, Office of S.D.O. Public Works Department, Sub Division No.l, R/o Chandmari, Raigarh, Dist : Raigarh-(C.G.) Respondents il fiS^ fc ;''i~'y ~j. »^i -r€f^\^^ ^J'^ t?l^ ^ 0. ii) iu) IV State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretaiy Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.j Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Near 'Raj Bhawan', Dist: Raipur-fC.G.) Supterintendmg Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division, Dist : Bilaspur-(C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) -^ .^ ;rl< V) (2) The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division No. 1 Public Works Department, Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- HI6H COWT OF WHAmSGARH AT Bn^SPUR W. P.fS) Na. 1212 of 2007 Petitioner yudhishtir Mali Versus Respon<tents : State of Chhatt-isgarh and otherfi 58: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. ft<d<edi An-thony, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy fiovernment Advocate for the Storte/respondents. O R E>E R (Passed on this 1st Dcy of March, 2007) 1. By this petition, learned counsel cippearing for -the petittoner submits that the petitioner was emptoyed on 16.10.1981 as permanent fiongman in the Public Works Depart'ment, Tahsil <& t)istrict-Raigarh, who has worked for more than 25 years as 6Eingman seeks a relief that the petitioner being pernionent gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhatfisgarh ^iaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for diort 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule (for Aort •F.R.')56. 2. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attwned the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Chhattisgarii (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Emptoyees) Pension Rutes, 1979 (for diort- 'the Rules, 1979'), framed under Art-icle 309 of the Constitution of India. After having attained the status of the permonent employee the 46 petitioner would retire on attainting the age of 62 years on superonnuation under the ppovisions of •the Act, 1967. 3. Leamed counsel appem'ing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner issqunrely cove.red by •rtie decision of -this Court passed on 4<11 Jonucuy, 2007inWP.No. 1(%/2005 (6ovind Vs, Sta-te of Chhattisgarh & o'rtiers) and o'ther connected matters. ^' 4. Leamed counsel oppeou'ing for the respondents/Slate does not dispute the submissipns made by leamed counsel fpr -the petitioner: 5. Accordingly, •the petitioner, who is permanent gcngmcn, is entitled to retire on attainmg the cge of 62 yeoirs in accordan<a wjth the Act, 1967. Thepetition js accord^ly allowed. No order asto costs. SdA SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sdbhash ^-