t_ ' b < (,o^ 8!N(?[F FB'GN S*T ?. ; ••• i'. :••••• '"•• @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. //^ / 2006 PETITIONER: ^ X.- ^ \.-^-- .-^ A^-^-S'?" ..-•"' ^•{W^ ^ss^ ^'.. '°;•" Mansharam, S/o Punau Ram Sahu, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village - Boriyakala, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS; ^^^ Aa\^ "\^y: $ /'l.StateOfChhattisgarh ' Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) -/'2. Executive Engineer National Highway Division. Public Works Department, Raipur, (C.G.) /' 3. Sub Divisional Officer, National Highway Division. Public Works Department, Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHF.R nTRffrTIQN OR ORDER Bkiinfeian^B'i'^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotrl, J. WRIT PETITION N0. 1138 OF 2006 Petitioner : Maasharam Versus Respondents : State of Chhatdsgarh & others Present: Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel wifh Shri Ajay Ilwivedi, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri A.S. KacUiawaha, Goveminent Advocate for the respondents /State. ORAL ORDER (25th March, 2006) 1. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner was workuig as Ganginaii in the PLiblic Works Deparbnent. Vide order dated 29.5.2003, the respondents have decided that Gangnian of Public Works Departaient should be retired from. service, on coinpletion of 30 years of service. It K further subniitted that fhe petitioner was appointed as Gangniaa on tltt» 17.11.1971 aad siace then he had'working in tfae PubUc Works Departiaent. The petitioner retired after coinpleting 30 years ofservice. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that ia W.P. No. 93/2005 (Bharatram Sahu and & othera Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and ofher coiinected inatters vide order dated 15.9.2005 aad further by order dated 16.1.2006 passed in M.C.C. No. 275/2005 (Latel Ram Kewat & ofhers Vs. State of Cbliattisgarh & ofhers) this Court has considered similar points, involved in this petition also aUowed the petitions. Leamed counsel for the petitioner prays that the same reliefbe granted to the petitioner. 3. Having heard learued counsel for the parties aad having regard to the facts aad circuiastances of the case, fhe respondents are directed to atlow the petitioner to perfonn his duly as Gangman, who was to retire on corupletion of 30 years of semce, but has not attained the age of 60 years, to rejoin fhe semce and continue tfll he attaias fhe age of 60 years, subject to adjustment of the retiral benefits, if aay, given to him. The retiral benefits, if any, paid earlier be deducted froin the salary ofthe petitioner in instaUinent at the niaxunum rate of 50% of fhe salaiy. 4. In view of fhe foregoirig, the petition stends aUowed ui fhe above tenus. No order as to costs. Bablu SQ/- SaUsbK,A8^o Judge tri