-sn-'C: ^~~^\ (^) HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPW Writ Petition No. 573 of 2006 Petitioner Sonpat Lal AAistri, Aged about 60 yews, S/o &»shiram Mistri, R/o Village Nogoi, P.0. Birkona, T<rfisil & Oistrict Bitaspur (C6) Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhatt'isgarh Through Ihe Principal Secretary, Department of Publk Works, Mantrataya, &.K.S. Bhawon, Raipur (.C.G.) 2. The Superintending Engineer, Deparhnent of Public Works, Bilaspur bivision, Bilaqiur (C6). 3. Tlie 5ub &ivisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub-Dwision No. 1, Bilaspur (C.6.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Present: Mr. Adiok Soni, Advocate for -the petitioner. AAr. Satish 6upta, Dy. 6ovt. Advocate for the State. OR&ER (Passed on this 9th &uy of April, 2007) 1. By this petition, leamed counsel dppearing for the petitioner submits -that the petitioner was employed as permanent ©angnwnin Public Works Department and the petitioner, who has worted for more -than 25 yeors as 6angma»iseeks a relief that -the petitioner being permanent gangnwn be retir'ed at the age of 62 years in accorctance with the Chhatt'isgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki- Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967') read with Fundamental Rule (for short-'F.R.') 56. 2. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner attained the status of permanent employee, as defined under Rule 2(c) of 1he Chhattisgarh (Workcharged ond Continaencv Paid •t •^•^^Si^^&^. •• • -• "IWK~~.. F-:. Employees)Pension Rutes. 1979 (for short- 'the Rutes, 1979'). framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of Indn. After hwing attamed the sta-his of the pernionent employee Ihe petitioner would retire on attainting the age of 62 years on superannuation under the provisions of the Act, 1967. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Courf- passed on 4th January, 2007 in W.P. No. 108/2005 (Sovind Vs. Stn-te of Chhatt-isgarh & others) and o-ther connected matters. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State does not di^>ute 1he submissions made by leamed counsel for -the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, who is permanent gangman, is entitled to retire on attaining the age of 62 years in accordance with the Act, 1967. The petition is accordmgly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotti Judge 6owri \s^~