HIGH €OURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR wags! no. 108/2008 PETITIONER Versus 1. RESPONDENTS 'Smt.‘ Ramkali, W/ o. Shri Chhabilal Singh, aged about 50 years, D/o. Shn‘ Vinod Singh, Occupaa'on Sgrvice as Daily WagerS, Presently posted at P.W.D. Division No.2, Bilaspur , R/ o. New Sarkanda, Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Stat€ of Chhattisgarh, Through Secmtary Public Works De-pamnent, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Sub Divisional Oiiicer, Sub Division No.2, Public Works Department (FWD), Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 153: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agihotxi, J.[ Shn' Vinod. Tekam, counsel for the petitioner. 1. By this petition,- ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed on 1.5.1981 as permanent Gangman 1'11 the Public works Department, District Bilaspur, who has worked for more than 25 yeais as Gangman seeks a rejief that the petitioner being permanent gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki—Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short ‘the Act, 1967’} read With Fundamental Rule (for short ‘F.R.’) 56. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as denned under Rule 2(0) of the Chhattisgarh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid‘ Empioyees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the Rules,1979’), framed ORAL ORDER 1Passed on this 9th da‘y ofJanuary 2008) Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocte General for the State. under Articla 309 of the Constitution oflnciia. After having attained the status ofthe permanent employee the petitioner would retire on attaimng the age of 62 years on superannuation under the pmvisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4th January, 2007 in W‘P. No. 10812005 (govind Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 81, Others) and other connected matters. @j 4. Learned counsel appealing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, Who is permanent gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age 01‘62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordingly allowed, subject t verification of the facts. No order as to costs. a J”, l i Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotn i l' Judge o r