HIGH CTlire-TOF CTIHATTISGARH^ BILASPUR Writ Petitioa (81 No. 7S3S of 2007 PETITIONERS 4 RESPOMDENT8 3. Philtnon Mmj, aged aboiit. 54 ypars son of Late Dhepra Miaj, workiug as Gangnian, under P.W.D. - Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.), R/o Vffl. And PO. Baadarchuwan, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (year 1989) Bajrat Ram Sai, aged ahoiit 52 years, son of Tilak Sai Rani, presentfy worldng as Granginan, under tbe P.W.D. - Kaasabel, R/o. viUage aad Post Kansabel Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (year 1989) Baiidu Rani, aged ahout 51 years, son of Khasi'a Ram, workiu^ as Gaaguian, under P.W.D.- Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) R/o. Vffl. Tambasiagha Post Bandarchuwan, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) (year 1989) Devsharan, agcd about 50 years, son of Shri Ungul Sai, working as Gangman, under P.W.D.- Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) R/o. vfflage Dodibahar, Post - Bandarchuwaa, Distt. Jashpiir (C.G.) (year 1989) Versus State of Chtiattisgarh, throiigh the Secretaxy DepartineD.t of Public Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Btaawan, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Enginecr, Piihlic Works Department, Division - Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Sub Divisional officer, Sub Division - Patthalgaon, Piibtic Works Departnient, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) WRITPBTITIpNUNDBRARTICLE %3S6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearsyace; Shri Vinod TRkain, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sumit Venna, Panel Laywei for the State/ respondents. w WP(S) No. 7525/2007 'f- ORAL ORDER (19.12.2007) SUOTL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Leamed counsel for the petitioners siibmrts that a permanent Gang-ma-n is to be rBtired at the agp. of 62 years in accordance with fhe Chhattisgarh Shaskiya. Revak (Adhwarshikt- Ayii) Adhiniywn 7967read with Fiindainental Rtiles, 56. He also submits that the point raised has been rlecidcd by tTiis Court in batch ofmatters i.e. W.P.No. 108/2005 and naany othcr coTinected matters on 04.01.2007, reported in 2007(3) C.GJC.^/. 39 fGootnd Ss others Vs. Stette of C.G.f anrl ttiis inatter is sqiiarfly covered tay that decision, which may be disposRrt ofon the same tRi-ms. I^amed counsel for the State fairly agrRes that this inatter is covered by the said decision. Howcver, bc siihmits that in some matfers the State has filed writ appeals. Untess somc interini order is passed, merfly on accoiint of fiting of tlie writ appeal, hearing of this writ pctition cannot hc kept in abeyance, whcn flie inatter is squarely covered tiy the said judginent. In the re8ult, this petition is aDowed. It is disposed of in terras of thc onler rlated 04.1.2007 passed in W.P. No. 108/2005 anr) other connecteri matters. No order as to costs. -——— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti