Indu Writ PetiUon (SS No.1998 of 20Q7 1. 2. 3. Tulsiram Verma, aged about 60 years, S/o Shri Bisahuram Verma, Occupation - Time Keeper in Publio Works Department, posted in Sub DMsion Konl, R/o Bhedimuda, ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G. Vs. State of Chhatt.'sgarh, through the Secretary Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.$ Superintendent Engineer, Public Wo.rks Department, Division Bilaspiir C.-3. Executive Enginesr, Publio Works Department, Diviston no.1, Bilaspur C.G. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State *»rci 'S Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts and question of law involved in the present case are similar to that ofW.P. No.108 of 2005 (Govind Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which has been disposed of :lh by tihis Couri on 4"' January, 2007. 2. Leamed counsel for the respondent submits that with regard to the fact as to whet'ner class nl employee is also entitled to remain in sewce for a period pf 62 years. As far as the rules is concerned, the class III and class IV employees are governed by the same provisions of iaw. The facts ofthis case is that the petitioner was working as ciass III employee and the case of Sovind (supra) has considered the cases 'pJ class Fv empioyees. The petitioner is granted iiberty to ma.ke representation for consideration of his oase, in the light of the order dated 4.01.2007 passed by this Court in the case of Govind (supra) and other connected matters. ]n that view, this petition stands dlsposed of. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge