0a N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S! No. 2105 of 2008 Smt. Bhanu Bai D/o. Punau Ram, aged about 6O Tahsii years, Nagri, about Distiict 60 years, Dhamtari Caste Teri, (CG). Rio. Mechka, > Petitioner ‘Versus 1) State of Chhattisgrh, through Secretary, D.K.S. Department Bhawan, of Raipur Water (CG). Resources, Matralaya, 2} No.1, Sub Divisional Mechka, emcer, District: M.R.P. Dhamri Dam, (CG) Sub Division (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) sB: Hon’bieM. Satish K. Aghotri, J. resent: counsel r fr enra th etitioner. uey ev umar a, Shri Aiok aks, Govt. Advocate for the Stat ORAL ORDER f A (Passed an 10‘“ day o pril 2008) With consent of teamed counsel appearing for both the parties, the mater is heard aliy. fin 2) Learned counei apearing r the petitioner smits that the it t n m n 1981 , seeks a relie that the petitioner being permanent Gangman be retired at the age of 62 years in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyarn, 1967 (for short, petioner, who was appoined as daily~wage iabour i the estabiishent respondents No. 1 and 2, of “the Act, 1967") read with Fundamentai Rule 56. Resmndents a n ta . r ni P Shi Mahd o e p Db With Shn Sanje K Shu Bhi e. w s p fo ub i f of the Constitution of lndia. After having attained the status of the permanent employee, the petitioner wcuid retire on attaining the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1987. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed on 4‘“ January! 2007 in Writ Petition (S) No. 108 of 2005 (Govind & others Vs. . State of.Chhattisgarh and others) (2007 (2) C.G.L.J. 29) and other connected mattefs . 5) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. V 6) Accordingly, the petitioner‘ who is a permanent Gangmen, is entitled to retire’on attaining the age of 62 years in aocordance withwthe provisions of the Act. 1967. 7) The petition is accordingly allowed, subject to veritication of the facts asto whether the‘petitioner has acquired the status of status of permanent”. r- Gangman. No order as to costs. M i" Sd/- v ‘ ‘ iSatish K.Agni_hotri» - Judge l ’7' ’C.‘ " t I;